Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

National Health Service (Pay Dispute)

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present with a sense of urgency a petition concerning the pay of nurses and other National Health Service workers. The urgency is that, with the unyielding attitude of the Government, there will be industrial action on Monday.
In the last few days, a collection has been made of 374 signatures of National Health Service workers, local residents and councillors in the London borough of Brent. In addition, I have 151 signatures which I cannot present because they were not on the due form prescribed by the House.
The petition states
That present rates of pay of National Health Service staff are totally inadequate in view of the present cost of living.
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will do all in its power to urge the Government to make an increased offer, or to refer the matter to arbitration.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Zimbabwe (Presentation of Gift)

Mr. Mark Carlisle: So much of importance has happened, both in this country and in this House, over the last few months that it seems a very long time since the House passed a resolution on 21 January of this year proposing that I and the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) should be selected to go to Zimbabwe to present the gift of a Speaker's Chair to the House of Assembly. It seems equally long since the memorable day on 9 March when we had the honour to be present, at a special sitting of the House of Assembly in Zimbabwe, to present the Chair on behalf of this House. I know that I speak for both of us when I say that it was an occasion on which we felt very proud to have been invited to represent this House. It was an occasion and a visit that neither of us will ever forget.
The kindness shown to us—and to Mr. Birley, one of the Clerks of this House who accompanied us—was enormous. It commenced from the moment when we were met at the airport on our arrival by Mr. Speaker Mutasa in person until we left, seen off by him personally, about a week later.
Salisbury, as it was then called, or Harare, as it is now called, is a lovely city, the capital of a beautiful country. While we were in the capital, we had the advantage and the opportunity to be received by the President and the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, as well as being generously entertained by Mr. Speaker, by the President of the Senate and by several members of the Government.
The ceremony and the presentation of the Chair was a friendly and enjoyable occasion. I think I should report to the House that, although the Chair that we presented was intended by this House for use as a Speaker's Chair, it became immediately apparent to me and to the right hon. Member for Mansfield that the Chair, although a fine example of modern craftsmanship, did not fully accord with the size and nature of the existing Chair used in the House of Assembly by Mr. Speaker or, indeed, of the Chair occupied by the President of the Senate. We knew that that view was shared by Mr. Speaker Mutasa.
With the permission of and on the authority of yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the then Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), I made it clear, in presenting the gift, that we would fully understand if it was decided to use the Chair for other ceremonial purposes and, further, that it would be the wish and desire of this House of Commons to provide Zimbabwe with an alternative Speaker's Chair made to that country's own design which would match more closely the dignity of the present Chair.
The gift that we presented as a symbol of our good will and to mark the emergence of Zimbabwe as an independent nation within the Commonwealth was received with great pleasure by the House. It was accepted by Mr. Speaker who asked us particularly to convey to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House his personal gratitude for such a gift. His speech, in which he referred to the happy coincidence of our visit following immediately after Commonwealth Day, was supported by the Leader of the House and by the Chief Whip, who is not a member of the Government but the leading Back Bencher—perhaps a matter of interest to hon. Members in this House.
As well as the thanks expressed on that occasion, I have with me a resolution addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, which was passed by the Zimbabwe House of Assembly on the occasion of the official opening of its Parliament on 17 June. It reads:
We, the Members of the House of Assembly, of the Parliament of Zimbabwe, express our sincere thanks to the House of Commons for the Speaker's Chair which, by direction of Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom, was presented to this House as a token of the friendship and goodwill of the House of Commons towards the House of Assembly".
The right hon. Member for Mansfield, who regrettably is unable to be present today, has asked me to say that he concurs in all that I have said about the ceremony and about our visit. I for my part would like to thank him and our Clerk, Anthony Birley, for being such friendly and helpful companions. We certainly enjoyed our visit. Part of that enjoyment stems from the fact that after three days in Harare we were taken to spend two equally memorable days at the Victoria Falls. The grandeur of the Victoria Falls has to be seen to be appreciated. The weather while we were there was perfect. It is difficult to envisage any more wonderful setting in the world in which to spend two days of relaxtion in good company and with excellent hospitality.
For both the right hon. Member for Mansfield and myself, it was our second visit to that country. I know that I speak for both of us when I say that we were immensely encouraged by what we saw. Much had changed in a very short time. Where before there had been war, there was now peace. Where before there had been guns, there were now merely friendly smiles and handshakes. I have no

doubt that Zimbabwe, as an emerging nation in Africa, will face many difficult problems, especially economic problems, but the apparent spirit of reconciliation that has been largely achieved in such a short time gives enormous hope and encouragement for the future. I have no doubt that this will please many Members on both sides of the House.
I should like to end on a personal note. I wish to thank our High Commissioner and his staff in Zimbabwe for the help and kindness that they showed to us throughout our visit. I should like to thank all those in Zimbabwe whom we met, particularly Mr. Speaker and the Clerk, Mr. Moore, for their hospitality. I thank this House, too, for enabling the three of us to carry out such an important and enjoyable visit on its behalf. I now have pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in presenting you with copies of the resolution passed by the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the House will want me to express deep gratitude to the right hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) for the manner in which he has reported to us the visit that he and the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) made on our behalf to the Parliament of Zimbabwe. It cannot fail to move us deeply to know that there is such good will in Zimbabwe towards this House. I have received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman a copy of the resolution passed by the House of Assembly in Zimbabwe. I shall ensure that it is entered in the Journal of the House.
I am especially grateful for the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman took decisions in connection with the Chair. This House would like to express its gratitude to both of them.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

Mr. Speaker: Before the debate begins I should like to say, in relation to the scope of the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, that it will not be in order to discuss police or general security matters. The order covers only Northern Ireland Departments and not the Northern Ireland Office. Anything within the schedule to the order can, of course, be discussed.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.
The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. It provides for the appropriation of the balance of the 1982–83 Main Estimates of Northern Ireland Departments and also of the excess Votes for 1980–81. The House will recall that a sum on account for 1982–83 was approved in the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 on 1 March. The House is now being asked to approve a further sum of £1,396,967,800 for 1982–83 in this order, bringing the total for the year to £2,472,366,000.
The Main Estimates represent the detailed spending plans of Departments for this financial year. These plans were published in broad outline in the Northern Ireland section of the Government's public expenditure White Paper, Cmnd. 8494, which was presented to the House earlier in this year, and in the statements of 6 January and 10 March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Hon. Members will be aware that first priority in the allocation of the resources available to Northern Ireland continues to be given to the industry, trade, energy and employment programmes as part of the Government's strategy to promote the long-term well-being of the Northern Ireland economy. Within the social and environmental programmes, the top priority is attached to housing where a considerable increase in provision has been made in a major bid to improve housing conditions.
Detailed information on the draft order is to be found in the Estimates Volume and the Statement of Excesses, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office, and in the explanatory memorandum which I have circulated to right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, those who have special responsibility for Northern Ireland matters and others who took part in the last Appropriation order debate.
Before I mention some of the main components of the Estimates provision which is being sought, I should like to draw the attention of the House to two changes which have been made to the format of the Northern Ireland Estimates volume. These reflect similar changes which have been made to the United Kingdom Supply Estimates as recommended by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. The object of these is to make the Estimates generally more informative. I particularly draw attention to the inclusion of an introductory note at the beginning of each Vote putting it in the context of the Department's activities and indicating expenditure trends. These prefaces contain the information which until now has been provided in the explanatory memorandum. In order to

avoid duplication, I therefore intend to discontinue the circulation of a separate explanatory memorandum for future Estimates.
The other change which has been made this year is the provision of figures for the two previous years instead of only one.
In addition to these two changes, the narratives of subheads within the Votes in the Northern Ireland Estimates will be expanded next year to give a fuller explanation of the nature and purpose of the expenditure involved. Some Votes in the United Kingdom Supply Estimates for 1982–83 included these expanded subhead narratives, and the remainder will be changed in 1983–84. For the Northern Ireland Estimates it was decided to wait until 1983–84 and to introduce the expansion in all Votes at that time.
I hope that these changes will make the Estimates volume more useful to hon. Members, and that they will be welcomed for that reason.
The House will remember that my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House last year about his proposals for departmental reorganisation in the Province with a view to making the machinery of government more effective and accountable to his direction and control. The merger of the control functions of the Departments of Finance and of the Civil Service and related changes have been effective since 1 April, and they are reflected in the Vote structure of the Estimates before the House today. The reorganisation of economic development functions will not take place until later this year, and some further Vote reorganisation may be necessary at that stage.
I now refer to some of the main aspects of the draft order.
The House will note that there is a total provision of £60·8 million in Class I of these Main Estimates for agriculture, fisheries and forestry. This provides for the ongoing services of the Department of Agriculture, mainly education, research, advice, measures to effect improvements in livestock, crops and product standards, disease control, and drainage, forestry and fisheries. A sum of about £7 million is provided in Vote 2 for direct support to agriculture.
Hon. Members will recall that last January my right hon. Friend announced that a further £16 million of special aid would be made available during 1982–83 for Northern Ireland agriculture. As I told the House on 1 April, the aid will permit the continuation of the special measures which were introduced in 1981–82, namely, an additional stickler cow subsidy financed by the European Community, and borne on a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Vote, a package of aid to encourage beef cattle production, a milk consumer subsidy, and payments to operators of licensed pig and poultry processing plants and egg packing stations. New measures to be introduced in 1982–83 include a grassland improvement scheme, as I announced on 14 July, and assistance for the seed potato industry. I hope that farmers will take full advantage of the former scheme, especially in respect of drainage and land reclamation, to help improve the quality and yield of one of our few natural resources.
There will also be payment of the recently announced European Community calf subsidy, which will provide additional aid for dairy as well as beef farmers. Only six-month-old calves born after 20 May 1982 will be eligible and, with the pattern of calvings, it is not likely that more


than £1 million or £2 million will be payable in the current financial year. But it is expected that about £5 million will be payable under this scheme in the following year. Clearly that will be of particular benefit in the sectors to which I have referred. I am glad to say that all the indications are that 1981 showed a substantial improvement in farm incomes over the critically low level of 1980. These measures will help a continuation in that improvement in farm incomes and strengthen the confidence in the future which is now beginning to emerge.
I should make it clear that the necessary provision for these measures is not contained in the Estimates now before us, but will be taken in Supplementary Estimates when the detailed provision has been finalised. However, pending approval of the Supplementary Estimates, expenditure on the new services and, to the extent that this proves necessary, on the continuation of the 1981–82 aids will be met by advances from the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund.
In industry and employment, Class II of the Estimates, hon. Members will be aware of the Government's intentions to establish a new Department of Economic Development, which will amalgamate the functions of the Departments of Commerce and Manpower Services, incorporating within the new Department the Industrial Development Board. It is intended that the IDB should be operational by 1 September 1982, and the new Department of Economic Development by 6 September. To facilitate the smooth transition to the new arrangements from a financial point of view, there are some changes in the Vote structure of the 1982–83 Estimates as compared with those for 1981–82.
Votes 1 and 2 in the current Estimates contain provision for those functions which it is proposed will be overseen by the new Industrial Development Board. The total of approximately £101 million covered by these Votes includes some £15 million for the factory building programme and some £70 million for industrial development grants. Votes 3 and 4 include provision of £54 million for assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in Northern Ireland which will remain the direct responsibility of the Department of Economic Development rather than the IDB; £8 million for the Local Enterprise Development Unit; and £6 million for the development of the tourist industry in Northern Ireland.
The provision for LEDU represents a significant increase in real terms which reflects the particular importance which the Government attach to small business development. It is noteworthy that, in spite of the difficulties of the economic environment within which it was operating in 1981–82, LEDU promoted more than 1,600 jobs and that in the current year it is aiming to better this figure by more than 15 per cent. The amounts devoted to the industrial development programme generally and the organisational measures which I have described demonstrate the Government's commitment to tackling Northern Ireland's severe and deep-rooted economic problems.
I turn now to the expenditure on the functioning of the labour market proposed in Class II, Vote 5. The present period is a very active one on industrial training. Since the beginning of the year my right hon. Friend has published three important documents on this subject. The first of

these contains the proposals for the comprehensive youth training programme, which is to start in the autumn. Provision of £18 million for the youth opportunities programme and the youth training programme is included in the Estimates for 1982–83, and the cost in the first full year is expected to be about £44 million. The youth training programme will guarantee to all 16-year-olds who cannot find jobs 12 months of full-time training and vocational preparation as well as providing a range of opportunities for other 16 and 17-year-olds both at school and in employment. I believe that it is a programme of really major significance to the Province and one which we are proud to be able to implement in full one year ahead of the comparable schemes in Great Britain.
The second document, a consultative document, was published in June and contained proposals on the future of the Northern Ireland industrial training boards and the Northern Ireland Training Executive. Thirdly, last week a further document was published, setting out the Government's proposals for developing management training in Northern Ireland—a key requirement in the revitalising of the Northern Ireland economy. The whole area of training is thus undergoing close scrutiny, and action is proposed—and in some cases already well advanced—across a wide front.
This is practical, innovative work which should stand Northern Ireland in good stead in seizing opportunities for industrial regeneration, and offers a solid background and support to the work of stimulating new industrial investment and job creation. It demonstrates that the prime work of the Department of Manpower Services is in support of that aspect of the Department of Commerce which, in the reorganisation, will become the Industrial Development Board and is further justification for bringing those two Departments together.
The Northern Ireland work force has generally won for itself a deservedly good reputation. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to have anything but the very best to offer would-be investors: in management, in expertise and skills of all sorts, and in the maturity of attitudes. We attach great importance to those initiatives in training.
Class III in the Estimates relates to energy matters. Detailed discussions and negotiations have taken place with the Republic of Ireland following that Government's initial offer to consider making a supply of natural gas available to Northern Ireland from the Kinsale field. Those negotiations were interrupted by the recent general election in the Republic and have therefore been more protracted than we would have hoped. We have, nevertheless, now achieved a head of understanding on the main terms and conditions, which is currently being considered by both Governments and we hope that we will bring the matter to a conclusion in the near future. However, it will be an expensive project, with heavy capital expenditure and a long pay-back period. The House would expect the Government to be investigating—amongst other matters—the extent to which private money might be involved to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and on public sector borrowing.

Mr. William Ross: When the Minister is investigating the cost in the way that he has just expressed, will he investigate how it would compare with the cost of supply from North Sea fields, where there is security of supply?

Mr. Butler: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that has been looked at, as he is aware. It was originally turned down, but when we make our announcements we shall refer to alternative sources of supply, both of natural gas and other fuels, and how they would be affected if we were to go ahead with the purchase of gas from the Republic. The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the purchase of gas from elsewhere has to be considered and cost and other matters taken into account.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister explain why, if he is considering keeping the gas industry going in Northern Ireland—I hope that that is true—£4 million is provided for the orderly rundown of the gas industry? Is the gas industry to be run down, or saved?

Mr. Butler: There is provision in the Estimates for the costs of rundown, but they are small. Apart from some essential work, largely due to obsolete, or in some cases dangerous, equipment, the amount of rundown has been halted. That is currently a cost to the Government, because there is a continuing subsidy to the gas undertakings. Clearly it is essential that the rundown of such undertakings, and the related rundown at domestic level, should be halted while we consider the possibility of supply from the Republic. It is a further reason for coming to a conclusion as soon as we can.
Moving on to housing, which is covered in Class V in the Estimates, the provision for housing reflects the high priority that the Government attach to tackling the Province's housing problems. In addition, that gives a welcome and necessary boost to the construction industry. The allocations to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for capital and revenue expenditure in 1982–83 total about £50 million more than the previously planned levels of expenditure. That substantial increase acknowledges the agreement between the Government and the Housing Executive on the measures necessary to effect both real improvements in physical conditions and a reduction in the urgent waiting lists for accommodation in Northern Ireland.
The current year should see contracts let for about 4,500 new dwellings in the Province, while future new buildings programmes will be planned to achieve 5,250 new starts per year. Expenditure on new building should rise from 1981–82 outturn of £67 million to about £95 million in 1982–83. That will be accompanied by an even greater relative increase in expenditure on improvement to existing dwellings where spending should rise from the 1981–82 level of £35 million to about £60 million in 1982–83.
I should make it clear that I have referred to the total programme of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, not all of which is borne on this Vote, since the executive's capital expenditure is financed from other sources.

Mr. Clive Soley: The Minister has just given a figure of 5,250 as the aim for new starts per annum. Is that to be the long-term aim, or is it planned to increase that figure over a number of years?

Mr. Butler: I believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who will wind up the debate, can answer that question. The figures that I have just quoted show a dramatic increase over previous years. They compare with the figure for 1979, attributable to the previous Administration, of barely more than 2,000. Through the

additional expenditure we are effectively doubling the number of housing starts that were recorded in the last year that can be attributed to the previous Administration.
I referred to the executive's capital expenditure being financed from other sources. One of those other sources is the executive's highly successful house sales policy—more than 10,000 sales have been completed. That should continue to generate high levels of capital receipts and the executive will be able to apply all of the receipts, estimated at £38 million in 1982–83, in support of its capital programmes. The executive is to be commended for its continuing policy of house sales and the higher levels of programme activity now possible underscore the advantages that such a policy can bring.
I know that the House is particularly anxious to know the position concerning the proposed special aid for housing in Northern Ireland from the European Community. Hon Members will be aware that the regulation confirming this special action failed to achieve agreement at a recent meeting of the Council of Ministers. The Government are extremely disappointed that the regulation, which would bring valuable additional resources to bear on Northern Ireland's housing problems, has not yet been approved. We are, however, grateful for the continuing support of the majority of member Governments for the measure, and we will continue every effort to achieve unanimity on the proposed regulation.
In the meantime, in order to ensure that the new houses to which Community aid will be directed are not delayed, the Housing Executive has been advised to plan its new building programme on the assumption that assistance of the order of £16 million will be available—spread over this and the next two years—towards the cost of commitments entered into in the current year. We have not yet reached the stage where firmer decisions need to be taken. If the regulation is agreed in due course the provision will be included in a Supplementary Estimate.
The Government's commitment to solving Northern Ireland's housing problems is also reflected in the increased allocation for housing associations. Outturn for 1981–82 is estimated at about £21 million and this amount has been increased to £24 million for 1982–83. The voluntary housing movement plays an important role in housing, particularly in inner city improvement, provision for the elderly and the promotion of owner-occupation through equity-sharing.
Class VIII covers the provision for the Department of Education. The provision in the Estimates for the education programme is about £526 million. Of this, there is provision for schools in Votes 1 and 4. Vote 1, which covers teachers' salaries, together with provision for grants for capital expenditure by voluntary schools, amounts to £210 million, and Vote 4, amounting to £193 million, provides for the recurrent and capital expenditure of the education and library boards. Those are significant sums and I think that it would be helpful to the House if I referred to some important factors underlying educational provision.
Until recently, educational policy and the allocation of financial resources to education have been geared to growth, but pupil numbers are falling in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The reduction is generally at primary level and is very steep indeed in some areas—for example, in Belfast, where the number of primary pupils in 1982 is only two-thirds of the 1974


figure. In controlled secondary schools in Belfast the number of pupils in 1982 is down by one-quarter from 1974 and the decline has only just begun.
Those trends cannot be ignored and we must tackle the problems of contraction to ensure that we match provision to need. In short, rationalisation of school provision must become a predominant concern of policy. It follows that school authorities must also accept the importance of rationalisation, for it seems certain that, as rolls continue to fall and staffing numbers decline, the range and balance of educational opportunity and provision for many pupils will be at risk. Schools will find themselves increasingly unable to provide for the pupil's needs and aspirations from within their own staffing resources and the undesirable consequence of falling standards will be inevitable.
There must, therefore, be movement on rationalisation by our school authorities to allow for an improved pattern of staffing in both the primary and secondary sectors. Unless that can happen, it is unlikely that Northern Ireland's generally good position, as measured by assessment of standards performance, can be maintained.
Turning to the health and personal social services programme, hon. Members will see that we are seeking in Class IX of the Estimates a total net amount of £535·3 million. That represents a significant continuing investment in the health and social well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. In Vote 1, the total provision being sought is £472·1 million for the hospital, community health and personal social services and some centrally funded services. The major element in that provision is the amount of £434·1 million being sought in subhead Al to meet the revenue expenditure of the health and social services boards.
That level of resources is intended to provide for a real increase in expenditure in 1982–83 of 1·5 per cent. Supplemented by the savings produced by the boards' continuing drive for greater efficiency and economies, that will enable development of services to take place to cater for the increasing numbers of elderly people and young people in our community, and to make the best use of advances in medical technology.
The level of resources available for the capital programme will enable us to meet our continuing hospital commitments and to proceed with some priority developments in the community. The provision being sought in Vote 2 will allow for expenditure of £91·5 million on the family practitioner services.
Under Class X, provision has been made for £415·1 million to cover non-contributory benefits, which comprise almost 45 per cent. of total social security benefit expenditure. The remaining 55 per cent. is paid from the national insurance fund, which receives a supplement of £51·9 million from the Consolidated Fund, provided for in Vote 1. In Vote 3, provision amounting to £700,000 has been made to cover the extension of maternity grant to all mothers on a non-contributory basis. The new benefit will be payable in respect of confinements from 4 July 1982. As the House knows, cash social security benefits in Northern Ireland are provided in parity in all respects with the corresponding benefits in Great Britain, and proportionately higher expenditure in the Province reflects and meets our higher levels of need.
I am sure that hon. Members will have noted the provision of £188,000 for the Northern Ireland Assembly in Class XI, Vote 1. The Main Estimates before the House today encompass only those functions of the previous Assembly, such as the provision of library facilities and the salary of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, for which there was a continuing need. A Supplementary Estimate will be required to provide for the costs of a revived Assembly, including the salaries of its Members, the administrative staff and so on. The costs of elections to the Assembly will be borne on a Northern Ireland Office Vote.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Can my hon. Friend give the House the global cost of the Assembly in, say, its first year of operation?

Mr. Butler: I have a figure in my head, but I am not sure about it, and rather than give the wrong figure I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to give the figure to the House. It is available and it is right that the House should know it.
The Department of Finance and Personnel has been set up as a result of the departmental reorganisation. The new Department is responsible for resource planning for the whole range of the Secretary of State's functions in Northern Ireland, for control of both money and manpower in respect of the Northern Ireland Departments, for the other matters which were formerly the responsibility of the Department of the Civil Service and for the Valuation Office, Ulster Savings, the Office of Law Reform and Charities Branch. Provision for all those services, with the exception of superannuation, is made in Class XI, Vote 3 and amounts to about £16 million. I am confident that the merger of those functions is a major step towards improving the machinery of Government in Northern Ireland.
Finally, I should like to mention briefly the excess Votes for 1980–81 which occurred in three Votes and amount in total to £255,056. Detailed explanations of how the excesses arose are contained in the 1980–81 Statement of Excesses to which I have referred. The Public Accounts Committee has raised no objection to these sums being voted. The important point is that overall expenditure by Northern Ireland Departments in 1980–81 remained within the total cash limit.
I think that I have covered the most important features of the draft order. My ministerial colleagues and I will be present for as much of the debate as possible and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply.
Before I commend the draft order to the House, I should like to conclude with two observations. The sums of money that we are debating and the total annual budget for Northern Ireland of which they form a part are, relatively speaking, massive. They closely concern the House, not least because they involve a net subvention from public revenues—over and above moneys raised in the Province—of about £1,000 million for 1982–83. Such sums underline, more positively and clearly than in any other possible way, the determination of the Government to meet the pressing economic and social needs of the people of Northern Ireland. Ministers have—as the saying goes—put their money where their mouths are.
Secondly, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule out of order any debate on subjects covered by the Northern Ireland Bill. However, it is relevant to our discussion to point out that during direct rule Parliament


is inevitably restricted in the amount of time that it can make available on the Floor of each House for the discussion of Northern Ireland Appropriation matters. The Government therefore look forward to the time when an elected Northern Ireland Assembly, with its Select Committees shadowing individual Departments, will be able to debate such matters directly in a local context. That is surely the best way for them to be handled.
The Northern Ireland Bill was debated in the House primarily as a constitutional and political matter. I took no part in the debates, but as Minister with responsibilities in the economic field I have given it a warm welcome. It will help, not hinder, the economic outlook for the Province, because it holds out prospects of greater long-term political stability, it will allow for more regular and more public and more local scrutiny, comment and advice by the representatives of the people and, as it brings those same representatives more directly in contact with the realities of dealing with our economic and social difficulties, they will be encouraged to find ways of taking responsibility for their resolution.
I commend the draft order to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for the way in which the information has been presented today. It was helpful and in considerable detail. I am afraid that that is about all that I congratulate the Minister and the Government on. I do not believe that the Government have put their money where their mouth is with the Northern Ireland economy, or that of the United Kingdom.
It is becoming commonplace to say that the crisis in the Northern Ireland economy is desperate. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see how we can get it out of its constant slump without measures that we have never dreamt of before. That is the nature of the crisis. I shall seek to demonstrate this morning why I am not convinced that the Government are making a big enough effort.
The Minister referred to housing starts. I shall not go into that subject in depth. At best what he revealed of the statistics was exciting, but I suspect that what he concealed was vital. The housing starts figures that I looked at showed that the figure of 7,000 in 1977 dropped to 5,000 in 1978–79 and then to about 2,000 in 1980–81. Now the figures are going up again. That is nothing to boast about. I shall look carefully at the Minister's comments in the Official Report. I shall give the figures much more attention before I treat them with the seriousness for which he asked.
The long-term aim for housing should be to remedy the desperate plight of many people in Belfast and other areas of Northern Ireland. To do that, the Shelter plan of about 10,000 buildings per annum is necessary. That is important.
I hope that in the debate we shall hear from the Unionist Members who did not vote last Tuesday on the Finance Bill when we debated restoring benefits to the unemployed. I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) were the only two members of the Official Unionist Party who voted, and they voted to restore benefits to the unemployed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What about the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)?

Mr. Soley: Four or five Members of the Labour Party and some Members of the Social Democratic, Liberal and Conservative Parties did not vote either. The point is that we all know that with another eight votes the Government could have been defeated. Nothing could have been more important than the restoration of those benefits to the 20 per cent. of the work force in Northern Ireland who are unemployed.
We have to answer for our actions. I voted against the Government, and so did two members of the Official Unionist Party. I hope that every other Unionist Member will give us a good explanation of why he was unable to vote. There are often good reasons for not voting. That was such an important issue that it would have to be a good reason to convince me, and a better reason to convince the public in Northern Ireland, particularly those who have suffered unemployment for any period.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The unemployed in Northern Ireland would pay greater heed to the hon. Gentleman if the Labour Government had done something about reducing unemployment, which grew and grew instead.

Mr. Soley: That is not a fair comment in view of the economic circumstances at the time. It is unreasonable given the present state of the country and the Northern Ireland economy. The hon. Gentleman will have to answer for his actions just as I must answer for mine. There was an opportunity on Tuesday for the benefits for the unemployed to be restored. The hon. Gentleman did not vote, but I did. I am content because I can explain my actions. I am asking the hon. Gentleman and anyone else who thinks that he had a good case for not voting on Tuesday when there was an opportunity to restore benefits to explain their actions to the people of Northern Ireland.
In a statement on 10 March 1982 the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland started by saying that he wanted to deal with the broad thrust of the Government's economic strategy. He then said:
The core of the Chancellor's strategy is to promote a private investment led recovery in the economy. The Budget proposals therefore are designed to reduce industry's costs, to encourage investment and to stimulate employment …
Smaller companies will also benefit from the raising of the profits limits for Small Companies Corporation Tax and the VAT registration and deregistration limits. The raising of the limit for Income Tax relief under the Business Start-up Scheme and the increased provision for the Loan Guarantee Scheme are aimed at the stimulation of additional employment opportunities. Because of the greater concentration of small firms in Northern Ireland, these measures should prove of particular benefit to the region.
There is no evidence that the Government's broad economic policy has worked either for Northern Ireland or for the rest of the United Kingdom, either in previous years or this year. The index of industrial production in Northern Ireland, seasonally adjusted, shows a dramatic drop after 1979—it goes down by about 13 points. That is a large drop by any standards. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) implied that there were problems in the economy some years ago, but there was never such a drop in industrial production. As is common knowledge, in the past few years we have seen the de-industrialisation of Britain. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland has been in the vanguard. It has paid the highest price by a long way.
Unemployment is now over 20 per cent. By any standards, the economy is not recovering. We are bouncing along on the bottom of the recession. Every time


we bounce up a little a Minister tells us that the revival is coming. The Minister of State told us that today. Ministers hope that the little bounce up is a revival. Every fresh report from another area shows that the revival is not real or lasting. Unless we use public expenditure more bravely and sensibly we shall not achieve recovery, least of all in Northern Ireland. The Appropriation order is a lost opportunity to use public expenditure as the engine for economic growth.
The ambivalence of the Government's position is demonstrated by the great enthusiasm with which the Secretary of State and his Ministers greeted the £90 million extra public money that they got earlier this year. They told us about the extra jobs that it would create and the extra houses that would be built. I welcomed it. Any increase would have been beneficial, but we must ask the question that we asked and that was asked in the press at the time. If it is a good thing in Northern Ireland, why is it not a good thing here? Why cannot we have a little more of it? There has to be a limit, but the Government have that limit wrong. It is too low.
The ambivalence is further emphasised when we note from the Minister's comments today the anxiety about the money coming from the EEC. We all want money from the EEC, but what is it if it is not public expenditure? Some of it comes from this country, but it comes from the European taxpayer in one form or another. We are asking for that public money. If public expenditure is such a good thing and if we are going round Europe rattling our collecting box and asking for a little more money here and a little more money there, why are the Government not looking more positively at the public expenditure strategy? I sometimes suspect that, if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland were in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would increase public expenditure. I cannot help getting the feeling that all the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office recognise the desperate seriousness of the position in Northern Ireland and recognise that it will not be overcome by traditional measures.

Mr. Adam Butler: The Labour Party's policy is that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the EEC. That would mean that we would not receive proportionally more than we invested through the European regional development fund. Northern Ireland would suffer and would not receive the additional £60 million.

Mr. Soley: I have always believed that it was a mistake for Britain to join the EEC. There are many reasons for that and it would be wrong to deal with all of them now, but, leaving aside political reasons, Britain joined an organisation that tends to subsidise heavily inefficient agriculture and does not subsidise inefficient industry. We had the wrong economic base to benefit from that organisation. Some of our problems today stem from our joining the EEC. If we withdraw, we must take extra measures to restore the economy. Some of the measures would involve subsidies to British industry here and in Northern Ireland that we could not give under the Treaty of Rome. If we are not to become completely deindustrialised and to suffer increasing unemployment, that is the path down which we must go.

Mr. Adam Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the people of Northern Ireland why he is advocating a

policy that would remove any prospect of additional money for housing and deprive us of the sums that we receive from the social fund and the regional development fund, which are disproportionate to the amount that we invest?

Mr. Soley: The money would be restored by increased Government expenditure. The Minister understands that that is the aim of the alternative economic strategy.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not true that Britain or Northern Ireland receive more from the EEC kitty than they put in? The Government have admitted, in answer to me in the House, that Northern Ireland is not receiving more. Does he also agree that, of the £50 million already allocated for housing under the special payback scheme for Northern Ireland in January and March this year, not one penny has come to Northern Ireland as additional money?

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman's figures for Northern Ireland are correct.
The Government are worried about public expenditure, but one of the fastest rising areas of public expenditure is unemployment benefit. We are paying people not to work. Every society has unemployed people who must be paid benefit, but it should be a short-term expedient, not a long-term policy aim, unless one is trying to find another way of running society with a different attitude towards work and pay. We have not even begun to think about that. At the moment the Government are apparently content to put other factors in the economic equation ahead of employment. One of those factors is inflation. There is a clear link, but I do not accept that it is balanced sensibly in the present strategy, which costs too much in misery for the unemployed and the low paid.
We should not forget that the Government were elected to cut taxes, yet during the past three years taxation has taken an additional 5 per cent. of the average wage earner's income. As the Secretary of State said when he picked up the broad thrust of the Chancellor's Budget, it was hoped that reduced taxation would lead to greater investment, productivity and income, but it did not work that way. As with so many other Government hopes, whether on law and order, taxation, peace or security, it has failed badly.
It is no secret that in Northern Ireland people have lower incomes and higher expenditure than in other areas. In April, the Confederation of Health Service Employees estimated that about 30,000 health service workers in Northern Ireland earned a basic wage less than the Government's poverty line of £82 a week, which is the amount at which family income supplement becomes payable.
The Government's press statements are revealing. A note to editors appended to a statement by the Secretary of State issued by the Northern Ireland Office on 6 January 1982 stated:
Priority continues to be given to the Industry, Energy, Trade and Employment programmes. The allocation of £200 M. to industrial support and development is evidence of the Government's determination that a shortage of resources will not be a restraining factor in the job creation effort.
However, the Northern Ireland economic council converted the 1982–83 figures into 1981–82 constant prices and demonstrated that planned expenditure on industry, energy, trade and employment will decline by 5 per cent. The estimated decline for transport was about 24 per cent.


The Government's priority consists of a 5 per cent. decline. That is the seriousness with which they are treating the crisis in Northern Ireland's economy. It is a desperate comment on the plight of the people there.
The overall budget increase was a mere 1 per cent., if we take constant prices as the base. That is a desperately inadequate response. The Minister said that the Government were putting their money where their mouth is. They have not done the necessary analysis to convince themselves, let alone me, the Northern Ireland economic council or the Northern Ireland CBI, of that. The crisis is not being met seriously. I know that the Minister is worried about it. He always looks worried and he has a worrying job, but neither he nor the Government are putting the effort into the problem that it deserves.
The Minister must tell the House more about the decision to start a small engineering firms investment scheme in March 1982 and to close it in May 1982. A press statement of 30 March 1982 was headed
New scheme of assistance to help small engineering firms".
The Minister with responsibility for industry is quoted as saying
I am delighted that this scheme, which was first announced in the Chancellor's Budget Statement earlier this month, will apply in Northern Ireland. It will be of particular benefit to small companies in the engineering sector who often find it difficult to raise sufficient capital to invest in new machinery.
I would be the first to agree that small companies are important in Northern Ireland. The quote continues:
The scheme is well timed. As the recession eases, companies which have not been able to find investment funds over the last few years will quickly have to modernise their equipment and processes; the scheme will be of great assistance to them.
The Minister was right to say that the companies must modernise quickly. They would have had only two months in which to modernise, because on 26 May 1982, barely two months later, there was another press statement, but with no quotes from the Minister this time. It is headed "Investment Scheme to Close"
and it states:
The Department of Commerce today annouced that the closing date for applications for help under the Small Engineering Finns Investment Scheme, which was introduced some months ago"—
that is one of the most curious interpretations of two months that I have heard for a long time—
is Friday May 28. The scheme was to remain open until the end of March 1983."—
that is one year—
but has had to be curtailed because of the large number of applications and the limited amount of cash available.
What was the "limited amount of cash?" I am not too sure, but, if I remember correctly what the Minister said a few days ago, it was about £20 million or £30 million. If this is the seriousness with which the Government and the Minister are treating the crisis in Northern Ireland, they are not being serious enough.
Either the scheme has failed for some reason which we have not been told, or it was beginning to succeed and the Government did not like the public expenditure implications. That was what the Minister told me during Northern Ireland Question Time. It seems that the scheme was beginning to succed and that the Government did not like the implications. However, unless we take the implications on board and unless we have a bold and resolute policy, we shall not get the Northern Ireland economy moving again. Small firms are a vital link in the economy. What is the truth about the scheme? Why was it stopped after only two months?

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman might like to ask the Minister whether any of those who applied for assistance under the scheme represented firms which had previously made investments—in some instances heavy investments—to provide material for De Lorean.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman may have information that is not in my possession. The problem is that we have very little information. If the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) catches the eye of the Chair, he may be able to enlarge on that issue.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and I visited Northern Ireland the other week, we went to two DHSS offices. It was clear that the work load on the staff was enormous. That was due partly to the massive increase in unemployment and to the problem of low income in Northern Ireland. There were also special factors such as students joining the register. The staff was expecting another surge in the autumn as a result of school leavers joining the register.
It was clear that the staff was using an outdated system and that it was struggling. In many respects, the offices were well appointed. There was plenty of space for the staff. However, we were left with the impression that there was little space for the public in which to make claims. Presumably the buildings were designed at a time when the economic crisis was far less dramatic than it is now. It is odd to place on the staff of supplementary benefit offices the burden of paying students benefits. Has the Minister a scheme to transfer that burden to the education authorities or, alternatively, to introduce a computerised scheme that would take the burden off the staff and enable claims to be dealt with more quickly? It struck my right hon. Friend and me, in view of the pressure, that what appeared to be a rather old system of organising benefits needed to be examined and reconsidered.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) were able to pay only a cursory visit, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be interested and relieved to know that, comparing my experience of the social security offices in my constituency with those over a quarter of a century in a constituency in Great Britain where unemployment was very much lower, I have no hesitation in saying that the efficiency of the service to the public is higher in Northern Ireland than was experienced within my knowledge in a constituency in Great Britain. I think that he should be aware of that. It is one of the outstanding administrative achievements of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

Mr. Soley: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman praising civil servants in Northern Ireland. It is an exciting new development and I look forward to hearing it more often. However, the right hon. Gentleman is comparing the position in South Down with that in his constituency in Great Britain some years ago. I am not saying that the system is necessarily inefficient. However, the burden of work falling on the staff seems to be great. The system that is being used may not be the best one. That does not mean that the staff is grossly inefficient. I am merely asking the Minister to present the House with his views.
There is an important link between education and industry. There was a suggestion that the Hyster plant would be built in Northern Ireland, but it went to the Republic. It appears that the Republic's higher education


system and its link with industry was regarded as being better than that which is available in Northern Ireland. If that is correct, it is a disturbing development. The Northern Ireland education system has been remarkably good in many respects. However, I understand that Hyster was attracted by the link between the higher education system and industry in the Republic, and regarded it as having good potential. It appears that it went to the Republic for that reason. It would be a disastrous mistake if there were any cuts in higher education, especially in the reorganisation that is now being considered. We should encourage the closest possible relationship between industry and education.

Mr. Adam Butler: I do not know what the Hyster team found in the Republic, but my understanding is that it went to the Republic because the financial offer was better. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Hyster team—I think it consisted of five senior executives—spent a number of days in the Province and visited, among other places, every one of the higher education establishments. It expressed itself as satisfied with what it found and with the quality of the staff that would be available to it. As far as I am aware, it was satisfied with the close relationship between education institutions and industry. I do not believe that that was significant in its decision to go to the Republic.

Mr. Soley: I saw the industrial development unit in the new University of Ulster only the other week. There was enthusiasm, quite reasonably, because there had been a number of significant achievements. I am encouraged by what the Minister has said. However, we must do nothing to the education system that will inhibit its links with industry. They must be encouraged at every level, especially with the reorganisation that is about to take place.
I should like to see the Government take up some of the suggestions made by Mr. John Freeman, the Irish regional secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. We should use extra public expenditure to boost the economy, to give greater energy subsidies and to boost construction work. Industrial development should be co-ordinated between the Republic and Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the political implications of that will send shivers down the spines of the Unionists, but they know my position. We have no problem in understanding each other. Even if they do not accept my constitutional view, I must stress repeatedly that, if the Republic and Northern Ireland choose to have competitive economies, both will continue to do badly economically.
It is impossible for 1·5 million people in the North and 3·5 million in the South to make sense of an economic policy in an island the size of Ireland on a competitive basis. There are many areas in which co-ordination and cooperation are needed if we are not to have the sort of nonsense that has been seen in, for example, the Hyster deal, when each side attempted to outbid the other.
It is significant that possibly the chairman, or certainly a member of the industrial development authority in the Republic, said that he and his board received no pleasure from depriving Northern Ireland of the Hyster plant, but that they had to do their best to get it as well.
Many areas of the two economies should and can be complementary, and there is a desperate urgency for the

two boards to have a link enabling them to co-operate and not just to compete. Such competition will lead only to continuing economic decline.

Mr. Kilfedder: It is not just a question of the Republic and Northern Ireland outbidding each other for business. I understand that many American and other business men who go to the Irish Republic are warned by the authorities there not to go to Northern Ireland because of terrorism and the dangers to their business men and businesses. I further understand that the Irish Republic embassy in the United States of America works overtime in telling American business men to invest not in Northern Ireland, but in the Republic.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. He is emphasising yet again the importance of the ability to talk through a co-ordinating committee. It need not be a joint board, if members of the Unionist Party do not like that, but a committee of the two boards. It is nonsense to compete in such a desperate way. If the hon. Gentleman is right, that shows the degree of desperation that exists to obtain orders. We cannot pretend that the two economies can be completely separate and in competition with each other while at the same time being beneficial to the people of Ireland, whether they live in the Republic or in the North.
The Labour Party is suggesting an alternative economic strategy which rejects attempts to control the money supply and reduce public sector borrowing as a simple economic theory. To go on like this will ultimately do to the rest of Britain what we are doing to Northern Ireland. As I have said, Northern Ireland has seen a desperate crisis in the past few years.
We must reflate the economy through public expenditure on capital projects. Obviously, there must be limits, but there is no economic sense in paying people not to work for a long period. That is the nonsensical situation in which we find ourselves. There is now a long-term policy of unemployment which, however the Government try to dress it up, is costing us dear, in both economic and social terms. We cannot continue in that way.
I am sad that the Government have lost yet another opportunity to do something more effective to intervene in the Northern Ireland economy. If we do not take more serious action, I fear that the crisis will only get worse.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not want to make any further comments on the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who led for the Opposition, about what happened on an earlier debate. To be fair, he should not say that only Unionists were absent, because the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was also absent. As I have said, it is unfair to say that that shows that people are not interested in solving the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland. Such remarks do not help those hon. Members who live with the problems of Northern Ireland and who are busily engaged in seeking to bring jobs to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Soley: I did not say that. All I said was that the House and the people of Northern Ireland should have an explanation. There may be a good reason why the hon. Gentleman was not present.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about Northern Ireland he would know that 12


and 13 July are days with a difference. If the hon. Gentleman had visited the Province with his friends on those two days he might have been enlightened to his advantage in the representations that he makes at the Dispatch Box today. I hope that the promise given by the Government on that occasion to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be implemented. If all the hon. Members for Northern Ireland, including the hon. Member for Belfast, West, had been present, that would not have altered the vote.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a comment such as that made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) comes ill from a party that does not seek to represent the Northern Ireland electorate in the proper democratic manner? When that party seeks to do so, then, and only then, can it be listened to on the matter of attendance or non-attendance of hon. Members from Northern Ireland at debates in the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should certainly welcome members of the British Labour Party standing as candidates for the Assembly. They have the opportunity to give their blessing to it. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North could stand himself. I advise him to come to North Antrim, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would invite him to South Down as well. He would receive a hearty welcome, but not a good vote, and would probably lose £150, which would be a salutary experience. However, I do not want to deal with such matters today as there are other important matters to be debated.
I was pleased to hear the Minister praise the Common Market and its assistance for Northern Ireland, but I am amazed that he has failed to suggest that the less-favoured

areas should receive support from the Common Market. I press the Minister on this matter. This is a running sore among farmers in Northern Ireland, as I am sure he is aware because the matter has been raised over and over again.
May we be told today what will happen? Will the Government now proceed with an application to the Common Market for assistance for the less-favoured areas of Northern Ireland? Are the Government prepared to put up their part of the money so that those less-favoured areas can be helped? I am sure that the Minister is well aware that this important matter will effectively assist the farming community in Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister deal at length with this problem and ensure, first, that the Common Market will receive an application for assistance for the less-favoured areas in Northern Ireland and, secondly, that the Government will put up our part of the money? It has been made clear at the Dispatch Box that the Government are not yet committed to putting forward an application to extend the less-favoured areas. I trust that the Minister will say something about that.
Perhaps the Minister can explain the announcements in January and March about the Common Market special repayments schemes and why none of the £50 million allocated to housing in Northern Ireland is additional money for the Housing Executive. Some of the trouble with the German Government stems from that. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I met the German ambassador in London—

It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

National Health Service (Pay Dispute)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on next week's threatened industrial action in the National Health Service.
The Health Service unions affiliated to the TUC have called for a three-day national strike throughout the Health Service starting on Monday. This action is in support of their claim for pay increases of 12 per cent. Each health authority will do everything that it can to maintain services and to minimise the effect of action on patients in accordance with the guidance that we issued in 1979.
The Government have made contingency arrangements to maintain emergency services where these are withdrawn, but I must warn the House that if industrial action is taken for three days patients will suffer. In the previous 24-hour stoppages the response was patchy, but seriously disrupted services in some places. If the strike goes ahead out-patient appointments and non-emergency admissions will be cancelled and waiting lists for operations will grow longer. Experience suggests that not even emergency services can be guaranteed in all areas.
I believe that, in the light of this, the health unions should now urgently reconsider their decision to take industrial action. Their claim for a 12 per cent. increase in pay and improvements in holidays and hours of work, making a claim of 20 per cent. in all, is quite unjustified. Over £400 million has been provided for increases in pay this year. That is our final offer and there is no more money.
The offers made by the Whitley councils are for average increases ranging from 6 per cent. to 7½ per cent. This compares with settlements of around 6 per cent. for civil servants, teachers and the Armed Forces. The money on the table, backdated to 1 April, is substantial. We estimate that average earnings would increase by £6 a week for a male full-time ancillary worker, £7·50 a week for a staff nurse, over £9 a week for a nursing sister and £11 a week for a leading ambulance man.
In addition, the Government have already started talks on permanent new arrangements for determining nurses' and midwives' pay which we want in operation by next April. I have also offered to have talks with the health unions about improved arrangements for pay in the future.
On pay for this year, the right action for the unions would be to return to the Whitley councils and begin discussions. On future arrangements for pay, talks between myself and the unions could start at once. I therefore urge all those working in the Health Service not to take industrial action. Such action will only damage the Health Service and put patients at risk.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not now clear that after trying to blackmail the health unions, trying to divide the Royal College of Nursing from the health unions and threatening the regional health authorities, the Minister has had to admit that what he is suggesting is no new money in terms of pay and a direct cut in patient care? Since this is a clear attempt to influence the RCN ballot of nurses, will the Minister make it clear that his offer is worth 69p to student nurses and £1·31 to nursing officers? Will he make it clear that he and not the health unions has been fiddling the figures?
Will the Minister make it plain that he has intended all along to cut the resources available to the National Health Service and that if at the same time he can clobber the health unions that is to him a positive political advantage?
What is the cost to the regional health authorities of the extraordinary letter that he insists they print at short notice and circulate to all staff? Who will pay for that? Will the Minister admit the real cost of the poor deal that he is offering—a deal which will be rejected by the health unions because of its unacceptable terms and because it is a direct attack on the fabric of patient care?

Mr. Fowler: I reject everything that the hon. Lady has said. It was totally absurd from beginning to end. She knows that her claim that the Government have cut spending on the Health Service is totally untrue. The Government are spending more money, in actual and real terms, on the Health Service than any other Government in the history of the Health Service.
Even with the adjustments which I announced yesterday, there will be a growth of 1·3 per cent. in Health Service spending for this year. That is the fact, and I ask the hon. Lady to check it and accept it.
The hon. Lady obliquely recognises that the Royal College of Nursing is balloting on the offer. I hope that she welcomes that development. The hon. Lady asked about circulating in wage packets the details of the offers by the management side of the Whitley councils. Surely the hon. Lady supports that. Is it not a good idea that the members concerned should know the facts of the offers instead of listening to the rubbish which the hon. Lady insists on putting before the House?

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Fowler: It looks as though the hon. Lady intends to intervene again, so perhaps she will make the Oppositions's position clear. Her right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), when Secretary of State, said:
I believe that we should condemn industrial action that does damage to the Health Service, whether it comes from doctors, nurses or any one else who works in the service."—[Official Report, 1 February 1979; Vol. 961, c. 1684.]
Do the Opposition stand by that statement? Are the Opposition prepared to condemn industrial action? If they are not, they have no credibility.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister now answer the questions that I asked him? How much will the offer mean in real terms for the health authorities? He knows that, far from a growth of 1 per cent., there will be a direct cut in patient care. How much will it cost the regional health authorities to circulate copies of the 12-page letter which represents a straight attempt to influence the RCN ballot?
If the Minister wants condemnation from the Opposition, let me make our position clear. We condemn those who seek to push Health Service workers, who are committed to caring for patients, into industrial action to which they are totally opposed and which he is forcing upon them.

Mr. Fowler: The House will recognise the hon. Lady's remarks as weasel words. Is she or is she not condemning industrial action in the Health Service? She is not, and once again the Opposition are showing no leadership.
The growth in the Health Service for this year will go down from 1·7 per cent. to 1·3 per cent. That is the fact. That is the price of the wages offer. It is extraordinary for


the hon. Lady to criticise attempts by the Government and the regions to get over the true facts of the offer. Such attempts are right and are entirely justified. What is totally unjustified is the hon. Lady's inability to condemn industrial action in the Health Service.

Mrs. Sheila Faith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the action of the Health Service unions is prejudicing the whole development of the Health Service as well as patient care? Will he reassure the House that volunteers have been brought in to help wherever possible to alleviate the situation?

Mr. Fowler: The House should recognise that there is absolutely no question but that industrial action within the Health Service is damaging and harming patients. Last Friday I went to see the position at St. Thomas' hospital. As a direct result of industrial action, more than 1,000 operations have been cancelled and cancer patients, among others, are now waiting for treatment. That is the effect of industrial action in the Health Service.
As for the use of volunteers, there were contingency plans and guidance issued in 1979. It is a matter for the district health authorities, but volunteers are included in that.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Minister accept that, as a result of the Government's pay policy over the past two years, almost every Health Service worker has suffered a reduction in his or her standard of living? He talks about there being no more money available but does he agree that, as the Government have suddenly been able to find about £1,000 million for the Falkland Islands exercise, as well as enough to give enormous pay increases to judges, top civil servants and the rest, it is clear that in this case it is the political will that is lacking? Is he aware that I shall be in Fife next week supporting the trade union action to protect patients and the Health Service from the depredations of a Tory Government who never liked the Health Service anyway?

Mr. Fowler: I deeply regret the hon. Gentleman's last comment, although I am not sure that his presence on any picket line would be likely to gain more general support for the action. He talks as though we were not already making substantial sums of money available to the Health Service. We are making £14½ billion available. That is 5 per cent. more in real terms than the Labour Government provided.
As for the discussions, I invite the hon. Gentleman to talk to the Health Service unions and let us get round a table and talk about new arrangements for determining pay if that is what they want.

Mr. John Watson: Has the total number of nurses increased or decreased in the last three years? Has the average number of hours that they work increased or decreased? And has the number of nurses earning far more than the basic rate increased or decreased in that period?

Mr. Fowler: In the two years to September 1981, there was a general increase in staff of about 47,000 in whole time equivalent terms. Of that number, 34,000 were nurses and midwives. In addition, there were 2,000 extra doctors and dentists. That gives the lie to the Opposition's allegations. Hours have decreased to 37½.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is it not hard to condemn industrial action on the part of the Health Service workers when they are being so grossly

unfairly treated by the Government? Is it not true, however, that the workers must be very careful that in taking such action they do not lose the public sympathy that is their greatest asset? Is it not a scandal that trade union leaders and the Labour Party have joined in a conspiracy with the Government to deny the one thing that could ensure fair pay in the future—a proper incomes policy?

Mr. Fowler: We have had this discussion before and I have invited the hon. Gentleman to define exactly what he means by "a proper incomes policy". Several months later, the House is still awaiting a reply. I hope, however, that he will welcome my offer to have talks with the Health Service unions about new arrangements for pay determination, if that is what they want. We are already doing that for the nurses. We want new arrangements there. I believe that that is the way forward.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: When I petitioned you, Mr. Speaker, one and a half hours ago about the urgency of this matter, I did not expect the Secretary of State to respond so quickly. Why does he not compare these offers with the pay increase awarded to policemen? Why has he not consulted the Prime Minister on the figures given by the Royal College of Nursing showing that a ward sister will be £36 worse off at the end of the year if the offer is accepted? Is he aware that I am perhaps the least militant person in the House but that, because this industrial action has been forced on the lowest paid workers in the country by the Secretary of State, I shall be proud to be on the picket line next week?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should not be proud to be on the picket line; he should be ashamed. I believe that the public will regard our offers as fair and reasonable. They range between 6 per cent. and 7½ per cent. I do not believe for a moment that the public will regard them as unreasonable.

Viscount Cranborne: Are not the Government to be congratulated on cutting the queues of Health Service patients in the past three years? Does my right hon. Friend not think it remarkable that the Opposition and the unions that they support are doing their best to lengthen those queues despite their well-known and well-expressed support for patient care?

Mr. Fowler: That is absolutely the effect of what is taking place. Until the beginning of the industrial action, waiting lists were falling. They had been reduced from the 750,000 that we inherited after the winter of discontent to 620,000. I believe that everyone would regard that as a substantial improvement. I must warn the House that industrial action is now putting that achievement at risk and that waiting lists are rising again.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Minister aware that his statement to the House will be regarded as highly inflammatory? Will he admit that the examples of pay increases that he gave were extremely selective as he picked out the groups with the highest awards and completely ignored those who will receive niggardly increases, although their qualifications may be more substantial than many people imagine and their devotion to the Health Service is a great deal more substantial than that displayed by the Minister? Does he realise that he


appears to National Health Service workers to be more concerned to win the headlines than to secure a solution in this tragic situation?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot see how an appeal to end industrial action and for the strike not to go ahead could be considered inflammatory. That is an absurd claim. The offers—I emphasise that they are final—range between 6 per cent. and 7½ per cent. I believe that they are fair, and they compare favourably with other offers—for example, the 6·1 per cent. awarded to the Armed Services.

Sir Victor Goodhew: In view of the comparison between the increase offered to the Health Service workers and that awarded to the Armed Forces, is it not disgraceful that Health Service workers should be prepared to put other people's lives at risk so soon after the Armed Forces have demonstrated their willingness to put their own lives at risk and to sacrifice them in the interests of the democracy in which the Opposition pretend to believe?

Mr. Fowler: Many people will take that view, particularly when there is more than £400 million on the table and the option is open to the Health Service unions to go to the Whitley councils and talk about its distribution. In addition, there is my offer to have talks not only with the nurses but with everyone in the Health Service about new pay arrangements.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Where is the morality in the stand taken by the Government when a judge on £40,000 a year gets a 16 per cent. increase while nurses and Health Service workers, many of whom are on less than £4,000 a year, get an increase which is less than the increase in the cost of living and which means a further cut in their living standards? Does the Minister accept that the industrial action which is to take place next week is the only reason why he has come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement? Does he accept that the workers are taking action to protect not only their living standards, but the National Health Service, which he is seeking to undermine?

Mr. Fowler: They are certainly not taking action to protect the National Health Service. That is absolutely certain, because the direct effect of industrial action on the service will be to harm it deeply and, above all, to harm the patients. I wish that Opposition Members would start talking about the patients and the effect that industrial action is having on patient care.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend confirm his commitment to a differential for those in the National Health Service who forsake the right to strike? In other words, will he make sure that nurses, if they are committed not to strike, will receive a higher settlement than any other workers, in the same way as the police and the Armed Forces can expect such treatment?

Mr. Fowler: There is a differential of 1·5 per cent. between our offer to nurses, midwives and professions supplementary to medicine of 7·5 per cent. and our offer of an average 6 per cent. to other workers. We have told nurses and midwives that we want to get into place by April 1983 a new permanent arrangement which will

determine pay in future. I believe that many in the nursing profession regard that as equally important, and I regard it as a major goal.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the hon. Members who have been standing, of whom I think there are seven altogether. Then we shall move on.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend say what guidance he has given, if any, to health authorities about the treatment of those who intend next week to damage the future of the Health Service and the interests of patients by absenting themselves from work, let alone by taking more physical action perhaps by picketing? Does he accept that many people in the private sector will be interested to see how the NHS workers are dealt with, because they do not have the same job security and, in many cases, they have received a much lower increase, if any, than the one that is now being offered to Health Service workers?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) and I both come from the West Midlands, and I know of the private sector awards that he has in mind which, in some cases, are half or even less than these offers.
In answer to what my hon. Friend said about guidance, we issued guidance to authorities in 1979, and the district authorities have that guidance. The people who take industrial action and absent themselves from work will certainly not be paid for any part of that.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Instead of fiddling the figures, would not the right hon. Gentleman do better to consider the fact that, because there is still a large gap between what is on offer to hospital workers and the rate of inflation, he is asking people in the National Health Service to take a cut in their standard of living which is already not very high? In view of the element of sympathy that is involved, is he not blackmailing the workers? Is that not a deplorable state of affairs?

Mr. Fowler: Money for any increases comes from the taxpayers. This year, many millions of people have had to accept offers below the rate of inflation. That is one of the prices that has had to be paid for bringing down inflation.
What the hon. Gentleman says about fiddling the figures is totally untrue. I hope that he will therefore support my action in making available to the people working in the Health Service the details of the Whitley council offers so that everyone knows precisely where they are.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the stikers' mates on the Labour Benches and tell the House when he expects the health unions to make moves, as the Government have made moves, to settle this totally unnecessary dispute?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The fact is that the Government have moved not once but twice on Health Service pay. There is now more than £400 million on the table and for negotiation at the Whitley councils. In all the discussions that have taken place, the Health Service unions have not moved a jot. I leave the public to draw their conclusions from that.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his appeal to the Health Service


unions not to strike next week would be successful if he were to make available new money on the table to meet the claims of the Health Service unions?

Mr. Fowler: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that we have made new money available. If he is saying that he wants even more money to be made available, the answer is "No".

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Secretary of State agree that he should pay tribute to the dedication of Health Service workers over the years? To put the matter in the context of Northern Ireland, where we have a higher cost of living and higher transport and energy charges, does he realise that these workers need additional money? Would it not be better for him to put more money on the table today and enter into meaningful negotiations because, as I have said to him before, it is wrong to trade on their morality and dedication? I hope that the Secretary of State will not continue to do that.

Mr. Fowler: No one is trading on their dedication. The offers that have been made are between 6 per cent. and 7·5 per cent. and they are entirely in line with the offers made to the Civil Service, teachers and the Armed Services. No one can deny that. I of course, pay tribute to the dedication of those working in the Health Service at all levels, and I pay particular tribute to those people who have continued to work throughout this industrial action and who have kept the hospital services going.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Is not the problem simply that the Secretary of State is demanding that some of the lowest-paid workers should accept a further drop in their living standards?

Mr. Fowler: No, that is not the proposition. The proposition is that we have made a reasonable offer to the Health Service unions. We have also offered them the opportunity to come to me and talk about new arrangements for determining pay.

Mr. John McWilliam: Does the Secretary of State accept the the points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) are accurate? If he wishes to refute them, will he tell the House what assumptions for inflation he is making to suggest that there will be a growth in Health Service expenditure? Will he say how Health Service employees in Gateshead will do their bit to implement their part of the Black report to try to get rid of inequalities in health when he is already deliberately cutting their already low standard of living? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the full import of the Government amendments to the Finance Bill which were passed in this Chamber the other day? Does he realise that a great deal of money is available—much more than the Government seem to need during the course of the year—so that an increase in taxation is unnecessary?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we are seeking to continue the RAWP policy, but choices have to be made. In the budget, we have to choose between the money that is available for the development of the service and that which is available for paying existing staff. A balance has to be held, and I believe that the Government have got the balance right.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

Question again proposed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Before we heard the Minister's statement, I was pressing the matter of the less-favoured areas and the need for immediate action by the Government on this proposal.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I apologise to the hon. Member for interrupting. Does he realise the heavy responsibility which now rests on his shoulders to restore this House to the constructive attitude that we were taking in the first hour? Does he realise that great damage has been done in the last half hour to any possibility of power sharing between the two main parties in this House or to the possibility of their ever achieving cross-community consent on any issue?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Certainly I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it would not be a figure of 70 per cent., and from the numbers in the House this morning it does not look as though it would be 50 per cent. plus one. As for his other remarks, I would say that it is the height of nonsense to propose something for Northern Ireland which Members of this House are not prepared to practise themselves. The best thing for them to do is to remember that practice is better than precept. When they show us the wonderful new mode of democratic Government, so-called, and show us how power sharing works, perhaps Northern Ireland, after seeing it working here for a period of 50 years, like the old Stormont, could then consider adopting such a form of Government for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North made a very important point—which he has made in other debates and which has not been fully answered by the Government—about the ending of the small engineering firms scheme. This is a point that the Government must answer today.
Some time ago, when Courtaulds closed at Carrickfergus in my constituency, a study was made of contracts that went out of Northern Ireland. It was discovered that more small engineering contracts went out of Northern Ireland than were awarded in Northern Ireland. In view of the findings of that study and the great possibility of increasing the work force in the light engineering industry, I wonder why that important scheme, which would help the small engineering industry in Northern Ireland, was brought to such a speedy conclusion. If there were so many applications and insufficient money was allocated, surely more money should have been allocated, because that would have created jobs as well as keeping jobs in Northern Ireland.
The Minister should tell us what proposals he has to help small engineering firms which can continue to do profitable work in Northern Ireland and which also have the opportunity to increase their work force. I have a little experience in this respect in my own constituency. The small engineering firms set up in my constituency have not only been viable but have continued to increase the numbers of people employed. The Government should be prepared to back those efforts with all the strength they can bring to bear on the problem.
Under Class II of the order there is a reference to


expenditure by the Department of Commerce on the Local Enterprise Development Unit, assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, capital grants and certain support services".
As the Minister knows, I have been involved in a deputation to him concerning the servicing of aircraft in Northern Ireland. That industry could be developed and increased in Northern Ireland, but at the moment we do not have the training facilities with which to do it.
There are those who are interested in a project to set up the necessary training facilities so that it would be possible to deal with the maintenance of aircraft, the turning round of aircraft when they arrive at Aldergrove, and so on. Will the Minister tell me whether the money is to be made available? The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North mentioned the necessary education facilities. The Minister knows that in this area the education facilities are not available and that the proposal is that education facilities should be made available so that young people can be trained in the necessary skills and employed, not outside the Province, but within it. I hope that the Minister will give some words of encouragement to those who have been pursuing the matter for a long time and do not seem to be getting anywhere with it. If we could have some success on the matter, it would at least secure a degree of employment and open up a new area in which young people in Northern Ireland could give of their talents and dedication.
I was particularly struck by the Minister's remarks about the gas industry. I hope that I understood him correctly. I thought he said that when the Government do their sums about bringing in concealed gas they will also consider the amount of money needed to bring the gas across the North Channel and make their decision accordingly.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If that is what the hon. Member heard, that is encouraging. What I heard the Minister say was that when the Government made their announcement on their decision they would set out some comparative figures for the alternatives. That is very different and much less encouraging.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If that is what the Minister said, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is very discouraging.

Mr. Adam Butler: I think that it would be helpful if I were to intervene. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) correctly reported what I said. What I also said, I thought, and certainly implied, was that in coming to a decision about the matter we would have taken into account the costs of gas from alternative supplies and, indeed, the consequences for other sources of energy.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know how helpful that is. Is the Minister saying "When we do our sums on the concealed gas and find that it would be just as cheap and profitable to bring it from an alternative source—that is, across the North Channel—we shall bring it across the North Channel"? Or is he saying that when he announces the amount of money needed to bring the concealed gas he will also set out the amount of money that would be needed to bring it across the North Channel, but that he will not change his decision? The Minister said that the heads of agreement had been initialled by the Government. Perhaps he will elaborate what he has said.
Our gas supply should be provided from within the United Kingdom. We should not be dependent upon a foreign country. I should not like the Government in Dublin to have their hands on a vital energy supply for Northern Ireland. If gas can be supplied just as cheaply by bringing it across the North Channel, I do not see why we should not enjoy the benefit of being an integral part of the United Kingdom.
The Minister made no reference to the possibility of concealed gas being supplied to Londonderry. It seems odd that the Dublin Government, who talk so much about their concern for Northern Ireland, do not display great concern for the city of Londonderry. Will the Minister say what is to happen to the gas industry in Londonderry if the Government go ahead with the concealed gas operation? There is a need for the Government to supply more details. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) will no doubt enlarge upon that topic if he is called to speak. It is a matter of concern to the people of Northern Ireland.
I am delighted that a Liverpool boat is again in operation. This augurs well for the future. It would be helpful to know from the Minister what progress has been made on restarting the Heysham link. It would be helpful to the people of Northern Ireland to know what is happening.
Some vital points were made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North about housing. There is need for a massive housing programme in Belfast. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East—it is in his constituency and not in West Belfast, as is commonly believed, where the worst problem exists—will no doubt explain what needs to be done. I hope that there will be no cutback in expenditure for the improvement of rural cottages. Certain promises have been made by the Housing Executive about bringing water supplies and other essential facilities to these cottages. It would be churlish if I did not pay tribute to the Housing Executive for the work that has been done. Much, however, remains to be done. I trust that there will be no cutting back in rural cottage improvements because of the large amount of money needed in the city of Belfast.
On the Common Market, I wonder whether the Minister can explain the £50 million allocated in January and in March, with a great blowing of trumpets by the EEC Commission. The money was earmarked for housing in Northern Ireland. It has not, however, been provided as additional money to the Housing Executive. I see no force in the Minister's argument that if we were not in the Common Market we would not be getting the lolly. The fact is that we are not getting the lolly. Anyone who tries to tell a right-thinking person that we get more out of the Common Market than we put in has not done his sums.
From answers that I have received in the House, it is clear that Northern Ireland is not getting anything like the amount that it should be getting out of the Common Market. A large proportion of the money coming back is simply lodged at Whitehall. It does not come as additional money to Northern Ireland. The three Euro-MPs have met the Commissioner. We have pressed in the European Assembly for these millions of pounds that should come to us as additional money for housing. From talks with representatives of the German Government, it emerges that the question of additionality is the problem.
I hope that the difficulty can be overcome. I trust that representations made by various parties to the German Government will be fruitful and that there will be a successful outcome to the talks when the Prime Minister


next meets the German Chancellor and that the money will be provided for housing in Northern Ireland. It is essential that the building of the 700 houses should go ahead. I welcome the fact that the Minister has not told the Housing Executive to stop work but has said that it should go ahead with its plans. I trust that the money will become available. If not, I should like to know about the other £50 million. It is surely possible for £16 million to be provided out of the £50 million. There is no reason why this important housing programme should be stopped.
I should like the Minister to comment on the success or otherwise of the enterprise zone mentioned in the order. Can he give details of the kind of industry that is being encouraged? Are new industries being set up? What extensions are being made to existing industry? How does he feel the whole project is going forward? This is an important project in the limited area within which it operates in Northern Ireland. It is, unfortunately, a very limited area. I believe that the whole of Northern Ireland should be an enterprise zone if the terrible problem of unemployment is to be tackled.
I turn now to the health services. Is the Minister in a position to make a statement about the city hospital project? What has resulted from investigations into long delays and capital expenditure far in excess of the original estimates? How many times have these estimates had to be revised? There is grave concern in Northern Ireland about the hospital. There is need for a full Government statement.
There is concern about the future of hospitals in County Antrim. What is happening about the new project in Antrim? What moneys are being made available to the Waveney hospital in Ballymena, which carries the burden for acute services in the area? I voiced strong opposition to the proposal to build the new hospital in Antrim. I felt that the promises made by successive Governments about the hospital being built in Ballymena should have been honoured.
I pointed out that if the Antrim hospital project went ahead there would be the possibility of a rundown of services in other acute hospitals in the area. I trust that the Minister will be able to say today what money is being made available to the Waveney hospital and what projects the Government have in mind for the improvement and maintenance of services, bearing in mind that the new hospital in Antrim may take a long time to come to fruition.
There is one section of people in Northern Ireland whose interests seem to be going to the wall. I refer to the old people in our community. I am very worried about the terrible difficulty encountered when old people who have no one to look after them need to be moved into suitable accommodation, either in hospitals or homes. I hope that the Minster realises just how urgent this problem is. When an old person goes into hospital, the tendency is to get him out again before he is ready to come out. I have had these distressing circumstances multiplied on a number of occasions, and I ask the Minister to take this problem on board.

Mr. Kilfedder: indicated assent.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I see the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) nodding his approval, and I know that other hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have experienced the problem.
Another difficulty that arises in these debates from time to time relates to social benefits. We in Northern Ireland experience great difficulty, for example, over the mobility allowance. From time to time I appear on behalf of constituents at appeals. It always surprises me that some of these cases have to go to appeal, because they seem to be so open and shut that a decision could be made easily. Despite that, it is necessary to go through the experience of bringing the person concerned and whoever looks after him before the tribunal and to submit them to examination, when it is quite evident even to a layman that the applicant is not mobile and should be getting the allowance.
I have talked to other hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, and they tell me that they have had similar experiences. Will the Minister look again at the machinery for granting mobility allowance? I am told that the first investigation is carried out in a very haphazard manner, the report is simply that the allowance is not granted, and then it is necessary to go through the process of appeal. That is a matter that the Minister needs to look at.
Perhaps the Minister can also tell the House the number of people in Northern Ireland who get the attendance allowance. It would be helpful if we could discover the number of aged people who get the allowance. It is necessary for the Minister to look at this as well.
I pay tribute to those faithful members of families who want to keep their loved ones with them and who do signal service to them. Yesterday I had with me a constituent who is 77 and who looks after her infirm sister who is 84. So far she has been refused the attendance allowance, although her sister is incontinent. If my constituent were not able to look after her sister, she would have no hope and no future.

Mr. Peter Robinson: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that recently there was a meeting in Belfast with the Northern Ireland Council for the Handicapped, which was attended by me, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), when we discussed the attendance allowance. The figures for which my hon. Friend was asking are contained in a written answer that I received not very long ago. That may help the Minister as he probes his civil servants for the details.
We discovered that in most cases where people had been refused the attendance allowance, on making their third application, without any significant change in their ability, they tended to get it almost automatically, yet they were entitled to it when they first applied. One of the most disturbing factors is that an applicant cannot appeal against the decision other than on a point of law. Surely this is the matter to which the Government should direct their attention, so that appeals may be heard by tribunals.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for the further facts that he has brought to light. The only advice that I have been able to give my constituents is to keep on applying. I have used my influence and lobbied the Department concerned, pointing out certain characteristics of various cases. This is a very important matter, and it concerns the well-being of the elderly. The well-being of the handicapped is vital as well, but at the moment I am concentrating my thoughts on the elderly—those who have given dedicated service to


society and who are now in their twilight years. The whole community has a responsibility to them, and we should see that that responsibility is fully discharged, as they discharged their responsibility to us in the service that they gave when they had the youth, energy and strength to give it. I emphasise that, and I trust that the Minister will comment on it and assure the House that the necessary action is taken.
I turn next to the vexed question of public contracts. As the Minister is aware, recently one of my colleagues made an alarming statement about such contracts. Certain facts have now come to light. It appears that contractors who get public contracts have to inflate their tender price to include payments which they have to make to terrorist organisations. This is a serious matter and it definitely needs a thorough investigation.
Will the Minister set up an inquiry into this practice immediately so that it may be investigated fully and so that those who have information may lay it before the inquiry? The matter must be investigated thoroughly so that steps can be taken to stop the payment of this so-called security money on construction sites. At the moment, the sites are not policed by the security forces. I recognise the difficulty, but there is no reason why they should not be policed and there is no reason, either, why public contracts should be priced at a figure higher than they should be because there must be a pay-off to one or other of the terrorist organisations—the IRA, the INLA, or any other organisation that tries to bring pressure to bear.
I can tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North that it matters not whether such an organisation calls itself Protestant or Roman Catholic. It is a scandal in Northern Ireland that this should occur, and I trust that the Minister will set up an immediate inquiry, whether it be a departmental inquiry or whether he calls in outside help. I do not care what sort of inquiry it is, but he must get on with this job.
I understand that the Housing Executive has also come up against this problem. It would be a tragedy if part of the money that may come from Europe were siphoned off into the hands of terrorist organisations. I ask the Minister to take the matter in hand and to announce his intention to have a thorough inquiry into this practice and to take steps to see that it is stopped forthwith.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) has two matters that he wishes to raise if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully support him on both issues. One is the Strabane bypass. Three years ago an inquiry was held into that matter and the bypass was approved.
We are also worried about local firms which are not allowed to send in estimates for public works in their areas because they are not on the approved list of companies. I do not understand that. I shall give an example of that practice, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster will develop the argument. If a large contract is to be undertaken in Ballymena, why should a contractor in that area who has a reputation for being able to carry out such works not be permitted to price that contract and send in that estimate? That matter has to be thoroughly investigated.
The Estimates contain an item for harbour services. Is it possible for the Minister to make a statement today on what progress is being made on the Ballycastle and Rathlin

Island harbour works? Both the Ministers on the Front Bench have visited Rathlin Island and know the facts. That island lies in the Antrim, North constituency and I am glad that they were able to visit it.
This debate is important, because it gives us the opportunity to raise matters of interest to us generally in the Province and in our constituencies. I am pleased to see such a full turnout of Ministers on the Front Bench. I trust that we shall have a full reply to some of the points that we make today.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what progress is being made with teacher training and the new university and polytechnic. It is important that the Government should tell us what progress is being made with regard to those two problems. The Minister responsible for education is also on the Front Bench, and he is handling those matters.
I urge the Government not to pursue their drastic policy of closing down rural schools. The rural school is an important asset to the community. It is part of the cement that binds the community together. It would be devastating to a small rural community to close its school. I trust that the Government will pursue the policy of preserving the cement of our society and the local community, and encourage a policy of keeping local schools. The local schools and those who serve in them have done signal service in Northern Ireland. They are an asset that we cannot afford to lose. I trust that the Government will ensure that they are maintained.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: These triennial debates upon the Northern Ireland Appropriation order are a unique feature or our parliamentary annual cycle. They are characterised, among other things, by the wide expanse of empty green Benches. Observers who are either ignorant or malevolent are accustomed to refer to that in their reports and observations as if it were evidence of a lack of general interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland on the part of the House of Commons.
Those people should realise that if any other part of the United Kingdom, comprising 1½ million inhabitants represented by 12 or 18 Members of Parliament, had similar financial arrangements involving similar triennial debates exactly the same phenomenon would occur. It can be observed when arrangements are made for regional debates which are of much wider purport than these debates. However, there would be one difference. Any intrusion into those debates by an hon. Member representing a constituency in any other part of the United Kingdom would be bitterly resented, whereas whenever these debates are attended and participated in by an hon. Member from the rest of the United Kingdom it is always welcomed by those of us who represent Northern Ireland.
There is one curious and undesirable effect of this unique treatment of Northern Ireland as separately accountable for most, if not all, public services. It becomes possible for the Minister of State to make the observation that he did about the net transfer of £1 billion from the rest of the Kingdom for the purposes of Northern Ireland.
I guarantee that there would be little difficulty, if the statistics existed, in isolating other parts of the United Kingdom with a similar population to that of Northern Ireland where, if the accounts were kept as they are for Northern Ireland and showed revenue separately from


expenditure, a similar observation could be made and would be similarly misunderstood by the rest of the kingdom. It is ironic that these two and a half days of parliamentary time and this unrealistic isolation of the finance of the public services in Northern Ireland is not maintained for the benefit of Northern Ireland. Although it provides hon. Members representing Northern Ireland and others with an opportunity to debate Northern Ireland matters, it is not the reason why we have these occasions, or why that unique separation is maintained.
We are much wiser about the reasons for that than we were a few weeks ago before we began the debates upon the Northern Ireland Bill. Most of us have now realised that the reason that this separation is maintained formally and financially is to satisfy the wishes, not of the people of Northern Ireland or any section of the United Kingdom, but of that foreign and hostile State. It is the prospect of Northern Ireland being able to be treated separately from the United Kingdom and eventually to find itself in a different constitutional arrangement altogether—the constitutional arrangement desired by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) and his friends—that the fossilised arrangement from 1920 and 1922 is preserved to the inconvenience of the House in general and not, in my opinion, to the net advantage of Northern Ireland.
On Monday, the House will be debating a series of proposed new Standing Orders to improve the manner in which it handles Supply, which is what we are doing at the moment. I hope that the House will support the proposals that will be made for a better and more intensive use of the scarce time that the House is able to find for the discussion of public expenditure and the financial affairs of the kingdom.
The two or three days required for the Appropriation orders for Northern Ireland do not feature in the reforms proposed by the Select Committee or in the draft Standing Orders that the House will consider on Monday. Those considerations have been overridden by the determination of one Government after another to maintain, for external political purposes, this and other forms of separation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the Kingdom.
The crowning irony is that even with this opportunity we are prevented, as Mr. Speaker reminded us at the beginning of today's proceedings, from debating security, which is the subject of most crucial concern and importance and of daily, oppressive presence to the people of Northern Ireland.
If we wish to debate security we have to find a place in the general financial debates of the kingdom as a whole and participate in the debates on the Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Bills of the United Kingdom. I give notice that my hon. Friends will be seeking such an opportunity before the House rises for the Summer Recess. Should our chance fall at an unseasonable hour, I am sure, from the attendance that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has habitually maintained when major matters affecting the Province are discussed, that we shall have the benefit of his presence.
Having outlined the general setting of the debate and put it in its true political and constitutional perspective, I wish to raise a number of matters of which I have given notice to the Under-Secretary who is to reply.
It is often proper to use these debates to draw attention to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland and of the Public Accounts Committee,

which studies his reports on expenditure in the Province. The only such matter to which I wish to draw attention today is the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report in February this year on the 1980–81 accounts of health and social services boards. His words should be put on the record, and we should have a definitive assurance from the Government—we have had assurances before—that this is the last time that such strictures from that quarter will come before us.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General mentioned that his predecessor had drawn attention to a number of comparable points and he added that he expected the auditor's reports on subsequent accounts to show
that the corrective action sought has been taken and has been more effective than in the past.
Having previously drawn attention to a number of those matters, I heartedly concur with the Comptroller and Auditor-General in that hope.
I will not trouble the House with all the matters to which attention is drawn, but will mention only four that ought to be put on the record. The first is
continuing weaknesses in stores control".
That has been a persistent matter for anxiety and disquiet in the management of health services in Northern Ireland over the years. The second matter is
delay in recovering amounts due from patients for accommodation and in recovering … amounts due from staff for meals, private functions, telephone calls".
The third matter is the
issue of foodstuffs to staff and others without charge.
The fourth matter is
serious shortcomings in the procedures for the granting of car loans to staff".
I do not suggest that there is impropriety in the manner in which staff are dealt with, but it is certain that there is insufficient accountability in these matters, and the more sensitive the matters are, and the more open they are to public criticism and misunderstanding, the more necessary it is that our accounting procedures should be above suspicion. I trust that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us an assurance that, as far as he is concerned, my observations will never have to be made again in one of these debates.
The ravages perpetrated on the motor trade by the flood of imports from across the frontier with the Irish Republic are causing great anxiety in the Province and may cause more. I apologise for quoting at some little length, but I cannot put the matter more succinctly than it was put by the Motor Agents Association a few days ago:
The latest registration figures for new car sales in the, Province for May show that one in four were cut-price 'grey' imports from Eire, many of them brought in by people who do not have a penny invested in premises, workshops or staff. As a result, authorised dealers are in very serious difficulty with bankruptcy staring them in the face in many cases. At least 1,000 jobs could be at risk since dealers' premises are filled to overflowing with cars they cannot count on selling except at a big loss since they have paid UK prices for them. Moreover, the best of the selling season is already over for there is no change of registration suffix in the Province in August as happens elsewhere in the UK, to give a seasonal boost to sales.
That is an understatement, rather than on overstatement, of the seriousness of the position. Anyone who watches the statistics—for technical reasons they are not complete—of the imports of cars from the Irish Republic will realise that the problem is still expanding. It is not one which has a single cause, and some of the minor factors involved have attracted the Government's attention and are on the way to being remedied.
A proportion of the cars assembled in the Irish Republic do not comply with the construction and use regulations that apply in the Province. The Government have given an undertaking, which no doubt the Minister will be able to reinforce this afternoon, that the construction and use regulations will be enforced much more rigorously than has sometimes been the case. Moreover, some of those cars would not in the rest of the United Kingdom comply with the type specification requirements that are imposed in Great Britain. It is understood that the Government intend to extend that form of specification and control to the Province. That would have a certain bearing on the problem, but it would be idle to pretend that either of those measures will do more than touch the fringe of the menace that threatens the motor trade in Northern Ireland.
Two major causes are at work. One is that the wholesale price to dealers in the Republic is deliberately set by the manufacturers far lower than the wholesale price to dealers in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, in order to take account of much higher taxation of various types imposed in the Republic than is imposed on car sales in the United Kingdom. That is one factor.
The other factor, if I understand it correctly—the Minister no doubt will have studied this and will be able to confirm, or otherwise, what I am saying—is that where there are informal quota arrangements, particularly with Japan, if the whole of that quota is not likely to be taken up by local demand in one of the countries with which those agreements exist, that country provides a useful method of obtaining a higher quota in the other countries covered by the scheme, so that, for example, by selling cars purportedly to the Irish Republic, Japan could obtain a higher total sale of cars to the United Kingdom if those cars were re-exported from the Republic to the United Kingdom.
So far as I am concerned, and so far as the motor trade is concerned, there is no question of being against cheap cars. It would be crazy for the motor trade to be in favour of expensive cars. That is not what lies behind either the justified complaints in that trade or the impact that these events are having upon it. The problem is the essential unfairness of circumstances in which trade between the Republic and the United Kingdom is unfettered on the one hand, while on the other differential price arrangements are made by manufacturers and wholesalers to take account of the different tax systems and tax incidence in the two countries.
That is a manifest injustice to the trade. It is manifestly calculated to produce a disruption of the motor trade in that part of the United Kingdom into which importation from the Republic is particularly easy. Perhaps I might say that it is one of many respects in which the United Kingdom has still, after 60 years, to come to terms fully and candidly with the reality of the fact that the United Kingdom has a land frontier. It is the land frontier that is the other factor that is in play and that renders the incidence of EEC law and of the practices of the manufacturers devastating in their effects upon an important trade.
I suggest to the Government that, having satisfied themselves—I should think that they have already—of the major cause or causes of this disruption, they should accept the responsibility for ensuring that it is dealt with. How far they may possess statutory or direct powers in that

matter, they would know better than I do. But what I am sure of is that the Government are not powerless to prevent the motor trade in Northern Ireland from being disrupted and devastated in the way that I have described.
I hope that the notice of this point—I am sure that this is not the first time that it has been brought to the Government's attention—which has been received by the Minister who is to reply will be sufficient for him to say something, even today, to allay the justified apprehension and fears of the motor trade in Northern Ireland and those who are employed in it.
I now come to ground which is the peculiar and familiar ground of the Minister who will reply. I shall deal with two aspects of the rating system in Northern Ireland. In both, not surprisingly, we find ourselves confronted with different aspects of a fundamental unfairness. It is a fundamental unfairness which those of us on these Benches are constantly having to bring to the attention of the House. It was the burden of many long, but not unjustifiably long, debates during our consideration of the Northern Ireland Bill.
It is the fact that Northern Ireland, for reasons which ought to be purely historical, does not enjoy that system of local government and local elective control of local services which prevails in the rest of the kingdom and is taken in the rest of the kingdom for granted, with the result that the element of the finance of those services in Northern Ireland which is raised by rates is placed in a different context, and an even more unintelligible context, to the ratepayer than it seems to be in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I move from the particular to the general. I wish to raise the matter of young farmers clubs and the rating of their premises. There is no rate exemption or rate relief in Northern Ireland that applies to young farmers clubs, yet in England, Wales and Scotland, although young farmers clubs are not exempt completely as of right, nevertheless they enjoy, so I am informed—I shall be put right if this is not correct—a 50 per cent. mandatory reduction in rates and the local rating authority waives completely or partially the remaining 50 per cent. Therefore, there are two inequities, which have no justification. Unless I am misinformed, in the rest of the kingdom there is in any case a 50 per cent. reduction in rates for young farmers clubs. There is no justification for denying that reduction to the corresponding clubs in Northern Ireland.
The clubs on the mainlands of Great Britain have an advantage which we do not enjoy, namely, a discretion on the part of local authorities to grant assistance to young farmers clubs. Rating authorities in Britain make wide use of that discretion. As the Government are also our rating authority, we can say to them "We should have a mandatory relief on rates." I have said it many times, but it is difficult for us to come back through another door, approach the Government as though they were a local authority with discretionary powers and say "We shall plead a local discretionary case for helping the young farmers clubs in the area that you represent."
In Northern Ireland there is no local representation for most purposes through the local authorities. The Government cannot—not because of malice, but because of the inherent unfairness of the denial of local government to Northern Ireland—exercise the same discretion as is exercised in Great Britain. It can be exercised here because those who exercise it take the consequences upon the rate. The rate comes home to those who administer through the


local authorities and who are elected by and responsible to the ratepayers. There is no such local link area by area between us and the Government in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: Discretion is exercised in Great Britain in favour of young farmers clubs because local authorities recognise the valuable role of the clubs. That reinforces the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the clubs are vital to the community in Northern Ireland, where they provide a haven of instruction. They should be encouraged in every possible way, rather than penalised.

Mr. Powell: As the father of a secretary of a young farmers club, I need no conviction of what the hon. Gentleman says. In any case, we have the evidence of a recognition of the fact by local rating authorities. The view is widely shared.
I make no apology for re-emphasising the fact that elected local government—I am not talking about devolution—administering rates gives a possibility of discretion, flexibility and recognition of local factors which no central Government, however beneficent, can provide. I hope that there will be good news this afternoon for the young farmers clubs and that the Government will at least match the mandatory 50 per cent. reduction enjoyed by clubs on the mainland.
We heard earlier this year from the noble Lord, who aspires to be both a citizen of the Irish Republic and a subject of Her Britannic Majesty, that he is engaged in lucubrations on a different system for determining the regional rate in Northern Ireland. He wishes to solve the essential conundrum of how one levies a local rate in a Province that has been deprived of local government. It is interesting that the Government are having another go, though not from the right direction, at this conundrum. They are trying to take it in the flank instead of attacking it head on.
There is a plain solution, which is that there should be local government with power to levy rates and with responsibility for those rates in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is still denied to us for reasons which we have learnt are connected more with the views of an external State than with Northern Ireland or Great Britain.
However, there are thoughts in Government circles on a new system for determining the regional rate. My hon. Friends and I suggested that before the Government progressed too far in their studies they might bring some of us, if not the public in Northern Ireland, into discussions, and that they might publish a White Paper on the subject. We forwarded this suggestion and the noble Earl noted it. He said:
I note your suggestion that we should consider issuing a White Paper or study paper.
He added:
We will certainly examine when our current studies are completed the best way of consulting the elected representatives and others.
I must tell the noble Earl that there is no better way of consulting everyone concerned than for the Government quite candidly—they can do so even in Northern Ireland with a Green Paper if they want to—to state their preliminary conclusions. The matter can then be debated properly locally and, if time can be made available, in the House before the Government get themselves too deeply committed. In that way the weaknesses and difficulties of any alternative scheme will be seen. I hope that the

Government will tell us candidly this afternoon that they will not carry the studies to an irrevocable point before they publish a consultative document for the House and for the public in Northern Ireland on what may be in mind as an alternative to the present system.
The present system is crazy enough. I do not think that you will believe this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it involves finding similar people and places somewhere in Great Britain to the people and places constituting Northern Ireland, finding out what in those areas people like us are paying by way of rates and then making us pay that amount by way of rates. It is almost incredible that there should be such a system. However, that system is subject to some modification if the Government discover that they are not spending as much in Northern Ireland on some services as is being spent on services in comparative areas in Great Britain.
Those are some of the consequences of denying to Northern Ireland the system of local government which the rest of the country enjoys, but still having to levy in Northern Ireland a tax towards those services which are provided in Northern Ireland as they are provided elsewhere. The moral is that there is no substitute for elective responsibility expressed in the form of raising a tax for local services which are locally administered. That is what we want to have, and in due course the sheer absurdity of denying it to Northern Ireland will break down the resistance.
Concessionary fares on public transport for old-age pensioners illustrate the same point in a different way. In this respect I declare an interest, having, somewhat late, provided myself with the facilities that are available in the area of the GLC for those who have attained a certain age. There has been correspondence between the Minister and my hon. Friends on this subject over the preceding months. He should by now be in a position to compare the varying pattern of these concessions in Great Britain with the rigid pattern in Northern Ireland. The pattern is rigid in Northern Ireland because in Northern Ireland there is no local discretion. In Northern Ireland the decision is taken by the embodiment of central Government. Its decision was to fix the age at 65 for men and women and to provide a uniform system of half-fare public transport concessions throughout the Province.
How does that compare with the best and the worst in Great Britain? We are doubtful whether under that system in Northern Ireland the concessions which are enjoyed, both in respect of age and quantity, compare equitably with those which are enjoyed on the mainland, granted that those on the mainland vary locally.
We should like a statement setting out the range of concessions available on the mainland and comparing them and their consequences with concessions operating in the Province. If that cannot be made at the conclusion of the debate, I hope that the Minister will make arrangements to do so subsequently. When that has been done, I can assure him that we shall wish the concessions in the Province to be at least equal to, and if possible better than, the average prevailing on the mainland, bearing in mind the greater dispersal of the population in the Province and the lower general standard of living enjoyed by its people compared with the average in Great Britain.
I conclude with two more general topics. In one of these debates several years ago I urged upon the then Administration the desirability of a general plan for the improvement of river and main agricultural drainage


throughout the Province. I was with some difficulty convinced by the then Minister in charge of drainage that it would be premature to do so at that time and might have the result of creating expectations which would in the event be disappointed.
After a lapse of about 10 years, I am putting forward the proposition to the Government again in a somewhat wider context. It is my experience, probably shared by other hon. Members, that more rapid progress is now being made than hitherto in the spread of main drainage and main treated sewerage systems. I do not believe that that provision can be wholly divorced from the progress in land drainage and the control and management of the water courses and rivers in Northern Ireland.
In the past 10 years there has been some progress, though not perhaps as rapid as might have been desired, in dealing with the main river basins in Northern Ireland. My proposition is that the Government should now reconsider whether the time has come to present the Province with a picture of where we stand now in the provision of main drainage, treated sewerage and the control of river and land drainage and how we intend to proceed in the future.
In dealing with the long-standing complaints of constituents, there is nothing to beat being able to present a rational prospect of intended progress. When we achieved that in the context of the improvement of Housing Executive houses, it made much greater sense to those between whom the Government and we hon. Members have to act as intermediaries.
The time has come to consider whether such a picture cannot with great advantage be presented to the Province. I have put the proposition in its widest form. The Government may consider that it is too ambitious, but it is partly as a result of the progress that has been made in the last eight or 10 years that I believe that the possibility is ripe for consideration.
My last general topic has constitutional aspects. The Minister at the Department of the Environment is one of a number who have shared with my hon. Friends and myself the strong sense of deprivation through our lack of a proper system of local government, and consequently the desire as far as possible to remedy that by pushing to the maximum the possibilities of consultation with the existing district councils in the exercise of his responsibilities at the Department of the Environment.
It has for many years been the normal drill with many aspects of the Department of the Environment's work for proposals to be put before the district councils for comment and for those comments to be taken into account, seriously and not just as a formality, by the Department and the Minister. Recently, however, the Minister has sought to take the system a stage further. He has sought to associate the district councils even more closely with his work and responsibilities by putting the consultations into a budgetary context.
I shall give an example from an area in which I first had to think about the implications of what was happening in the context of the road service. Instead of merely saying to the district councils "These are the road projects which it is hoped to carry out in your district in the next few years", when a different order of priority and a different selection of projects is proposed by the district councils they should be told "Very well, but this is the cost of the

projects concerned, and provided that you can keep within the following total in each of the years of the plan you can have your way."
I trust that I have not seriously misrepresented the natue of the co-operation. If I have, it is in the words "You can have your way." There is a point—if I may coin an aphorism—at which there is no substitute for true responsibility. One can do much, or at least one can do something, to meet the consequences of the lack of local government by consultation in the ordinary sense of the term with existing district councils upon matters which are not within their statutory powers. There comes a point beyond which it is impossible to give them, without those statutory powers, the effective right to take decisions and to fix priorities.
I illustrate that crux and that dividing line by putting to the Minister the example of the Member of Parliament who raises with the Minister, as is his right and duty, a deficiency in some environmental respect in his constituency. He brings the circumstances to the Minister's attention, he makes his own inquiries, and he puts a proposition to the Minister. The reply comes back "Well, yes, but the district council does not give this scheme a sufficiently high priority for it to be put into the programme for the next two, three or five years."
If there were local government in Northern Ireland and local responsibility by locally elected representatives responsible to local ratepayers for the maintenance and improvement, for example, of roads, the Member of Parliament would be justified in saying to his constituents "If you are not satisfied with what is happening, do not come to me. I am not responsible. Go to your local councillor, who is responsible to you. If you do not like the result, you know what to do to your local councillor."
So long as the statutory power and authority vest in the Government of Northern Ireland and in the Minister, however, the Member of Parliament has no such recourse. He find himself in the paradox that he bears responsibility to his constituents for the environmental services provided by the Government, but when he seeks to exercise that responsibility he is potentially met by a response from the Minister that the matter is in fact decided by the district council.
I do not think that matters have quite reached the point which I have sought to illustrate, but the very fact of the warm good will of the particular Minister and, I am sure, the Government generally towards giving a voice to the existing district councils is rapidly leading us towards a problematic constitutional position. The same contradiction is unhappily familiar in the case of the boards for health, education and housing. The Minister is apt to say "This is a matter that I leave to the board", but the members of the board are the servants, the appointees and the statutory agents of the Minister. They have no independent authority of their own. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out in previous debates, the Minister replies time and again "That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for my agents or creatures." That is a constitutional contradiction in Northern Ireland which has the same fundamental origin and which we do not wish to be extended.
I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will reflect upon this. I am afraid that I must conclude that their reflections ought to lead to the conclusion that there is no substitute for elected local authorities responsible to the ratepayers and administering the local services in their


area. I am sorry if this becomes boring with reiteration, but I assure the House that the lack becomes even more boring to the people of Northern Ireland who suffer from it.

Mr. James Kilfedder: It cannot be often that an hon. Member can say that he agrees with everything that has been said in a debate, but I certainly agree with the arguments advanced in the speeches that I have heard so far, and with the speech that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) will be making in due course if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Therefore, I shall not repeat what has already been said.
I support the comments of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about the rating of young farmers clubs. It is iniquitous that they should be penalised when they do such a wonderful job, especially as their counterparts in Great Britain receive the benefits that the right hon. Gentleman so graphically described. Young farmers clubs are places where people of all religions can get together and where young people can learn about farming. Moreover, they provide social opportunities. They deserve the Government's full support, and I echo the right hon. Gentleman's call for a clear answer today from the Government that the iniquitous rating burden on them will be brought to an end.
I wish to raise three topics—housing, education and health. On health, we are all frequently reminded that the Health Service costs millions of pounds for the whole United Kingdom. I do not know what it costs in Northern Ireland, but no doubt it costs some millions there, too. We are all worried about the waste and inefficiency in the Health Service. One of the greatest drains on the system is the cost of prescriptions. A constituent sent me an article that he cut out from the Sunday Express of 4 July. Perhaps I might quote briefly from it, because it sums up my criticism of the system:
Can it really be true that Britain's National Health Service is paying over £81 for a bottle of Beecham's Amoxil antibiotic tablets, when the same thing is available in Singapore for just £35?
Is it the case that Zyloric arthritis pills made by Wellcome cost only £3 when bought overseas, but are sold to the NHS for a hefty £14·34?
Do the French really only pay £4·30 for Bayer's Adalat heart capsules, while our hospitals are being charged £12·31?
The big drugs companies deny that they are ripping off the Health Service. They say that their pricing system ensures that the taxpayer gets good value for money".
My constituent sent me the packing from a packet of Canesten pills which he bought in Italy a few weeks ago. He paid 91·88p for the packet. The price in Northern Ireland for the same amount—I assume that the price is the same in the rest of the United Kingdom—would be £5·80, six times the price.
When the Government castigate people in the United Kingdom, particularly people in Northern Ireland, about the amount of money that the Government spend on the Health Service they should look at pill manufacturers who do very well, and seem to do better financially each year, out of the ill health of the people in this country. When the Government are considering where to make cuts, they should decide, first, to cut the pill manufacturers' profits. Those manufacturers should be brought to account. They do not get away with it in the Common Market. Many

people in this country criticise the Common Market, but we could take a lesson from the Common Market countries in the way that they control the prices of medicines.
That brings me to the subject of cuts. The 1981 financial restraints presented the four health boards in Northern Ireland with an enormous task. As it turned out, increased efficiency did not result from the employment of reduced resources. There was a natural reduction in the provision of services, including an adverse effect on the community health programme in the Province. In my constituency, the two most notable effects were in the home help service and in the care of the elderly. Many elderly people were aghast to hear, without warning, that the home helps—on whom they depend for simple cleaning and cooking, fire making and other essential household duties which they are not capable of performing themselves—were to have their hours reduced.
An 82-year-old lady in Bangor was told on a Monday that her home help for the following day would attend for only half an hour instead of the customary two hours. One can imagine the effect of that news on a lonely, elderly person. It showed an extraordinary degree of inhumanity and the bureaucracy should not behave in such a way. The people are not there just as numbers for the bureaucracy to play about with and to regulate. No welfare worker, however hard pressed, should ever allow such a thing to happen. If the hours of the home helps have to be reduced, fair warning—and reassurance about the future—should always be given.
I question the way in which the hours have been cut. The people concerned are not able, unfortunately, to create an outcry, either in their own community or in the nation at large. Elderly people deserve a better deal than they are receiving. In the case that I mentioned, I am glad to say that my representations to the chairman of the Eastern health board succeeded, and he was able to arrange for the home help to attend for one and a half hours a day instead of the threatened half an hour. If that change in decision could be made, why was the elderly person originally told that from the following day her home help's time would be cut from two hours to half an hour?
In fairness to the board's officers, it should be made clear that, in addition to the cuts in expenditure, they were also faced with the consequences of an agreement to treat essentially part-time home helps on the same basis, in regard to holiday pay and sickness absences, as full-time staff. The officials had to cope with a double problem which created hideous administrative difficulties, but that does not excuse the indifferent treatment of the elderly.
There are many other cases in which home help services have been drastically reduced, with hardship to the individual. The Government and the health boards must take the blame, especially as huge sums of money are swallowed up, as I have already said, by the pill manufacturers, who have no need for home helps and who would, I suppose, scoff if anyone suggested that one day they might need home help. The pill manufacturers make the profit and then, in addition to the colossal sum of money paid to them, there is that white elephant which swallows up millions of pounds in the heart of Belfast. I should not describe it as a white elephant; it is more like some white monster in a film. It swallows all the money that it can get its hands on. I refer, of course, to the tower block at the city hospital.
Many loving and dedicated sons and daughters look after their elderly and often confused parents in their own


homes, and it is a work of selfless devotion. In many cases it is not a nine to five job or even a five days a week job. It is a full-time job in every sense—day and night, every day. Those loyal and dedicated people deserve help from the health boards and the Government. It is high time that the valuable service which is performed so selflessly by those sons and daughters, wives in some cases and husbands in a smaller number of cases, was recognised. The Government can give recognition to it by ensuring that they do not themselves suffer hardship.
An elderly relative is sometimes admitted to hospital or an old people's home for a few weeks each year to give the sons or daughters a rest and to allow them to regain their strength. Anyone who has tried to lift an elderly person will know the amount of labour that is involved. I do not believe that Ministers or officials have elderly relatives or, at any rate that they have had to care for them. If they had been obliged to lift them in bed they would know the toll that it takes.
With an increasingly aged population, there should be greater provision to enable elderly people to be admitted to hospital for short periods. Last year, funds were not available for expansion. Indeed, there was evidence of a reduction in opportunities for the kind of help that I have mentioned. I know of cases where sons, daughters and wives become desperate for relief for a short period. Either provision is not available or the authorities state that too short a period of notice has been given. I appreciate the latter point.
However, in a recent case that I presented to the Eastern health board—I present many each year—I felt that more could have been done to provide a bed for a few weeks for an elderly person, cared for diligently and lovingly by his wife who was desperate for respite. The board replied that, unfortunately, not enough time had been given and that holiday arrangements meant that it was not possible to place the husband in hospital for a stay of two or three weeks. It will be agreed, I hope, that such devotion to a relative should be repaid by the health boards and by the Government displaying a much more flexible and positive attitude.
I am aware that the Minister believes that the present expenditure on health and education in Northern Ireland is not excessive. Even though the per capita expenditure in Northern Ireland is higher than in England and Wales and is on a par with Scotland, the Minister stated in a speech at Altnagelvin hospital on 18 May that
the per capita levels are fully justifiable by virtue of the Province's high levels of need and deprivation".
The total budget for health and welfare services is about £570 million of which £150 million is for care of the elderly. If pensions and supplementary benefits are added, total expenditure on the elderly is £480 million per year. I believe that the Minister is wrong to rely upon the four health boards to find greater efficiency in the operation of services for which they are responsible. There is no way in which these massive administrative octopuses can hope to show dramatic initiative in achieving greater efficiency, cost cutting and greater output at lower cost. The peculiar relationship that exists between the health boards and the Department of Health is itself an example of management inefficiency. The boards have no constitutional independence, and they are assumed to have financial

independence once the annual allocations have been made, at least in terms of running costs. But this is an oversimplification of the real position.
In his speech at Altnagelvin hospital, the Minister quoted a number of interesting figures. But there are others that he could have quoted. He referred to the remarkable progress in diagnosis and treatment and to the extensive use of expensive technology. He seemed to imply that health boards must be prepared to abandon old services and old facilities which were no longer cost-effective. Few will deny that progress must mean the use of new systems in preference to the out-dated where new systems are a real advance on the old. But sometimes firms are very skilful in selling new machinery when perhaps there is some life and much good still in existing machinery.
It is the Department of Health which is responsible for major capital works from which most of the increased recurrent costs flow. Therefore, the Department of Health and not the health boards should be responsible for finding any extra costs which result from departmental decisions.
It was the Department of Health which allowed the architects and the planners to go berserk in the creation of the tower block at the city hospital. "Berserk" is about the only word which properly describes their conduct, which has cost the taxpayer so much. I believe that the cost has now risen to close on £60 million, and that for what has been described as a white elephant. The recurring cost of the tower block is conservatively estimated at 15 per cent. more initially than the existing cost of the city hospital and £11 million more each year eventually.
I should like the Minister to give the facts to the House. It was the Department of Health which agreed to the provision of ever more regional services at the Royal Victoria hospital which are making it the most expensive hospital in the United Kingdom—and that is saying something. In my opinion, a public inquiry is needed into the Health Service in the Province, the state of the hospitals and the costs per bed in hospitals in Northern Ireland, especially hospitals in Belfast. I demand such an inquiry today. Meanwhile the Minister must provide the particulars of the costs and the number of people catered for in each small area.
People in North Down and throughout the Province who may have to go to the Royal Victoria hospital actually fear having to go there because of its location. I mentioned this in a previous debate. I have argued that the Royal Victoria should be closed, with a new hospital put somewhere else to help to provide services for people in the outlying parts of Belfast, Antrim, Armagh and the county of Down.
There are too many hospitals in Belfast as it is, and it was the Department of Health which agreed to a massive extension of the Mater hospital and in medical areas already provided at the Royal Victoria hospital, a relatively short distance away in Belfast. In addition, there is the Musgrave hospital, and there are others in Belfast. The over-concentration of hospitals in the centre of Belfast and particularly in North and West Belfast is the principal cause of the grave financial dilemma facing the health board, and the responsibility for this state of affairs rests firmly with the Department of Health.
In my constituency the Department of Health opposed a new county hospital to serve Bangor and Newtownards and insisted on a new hospital at Dundonald—in other words, a new hospital for Belfast—without providing similar services for people outside Belfast, when it was


already offering to spend millions of pounds for hospitals in Belfast. Since then it has provided more millions of pounds for hospitals in Belfast, and it is cutting services in North Down. There is something wrong.
The Eastern health board not only takes in the area of North Down but the whole of Belfast. As a result of that, Belfast drains most of the money from North Down. North Down is not a sparsely populated area. I represent a constituency that has about 130,000 electors. That figure is increasing the whole time. North Down deserves a better deal than it is getting from the Government or the Eastern health board. The Eastern health board proposals had the hallmark of unthinking bureaucracy when it proposed closing the Bangor hospital, changing the nature of the Ards hospital, and closing the Crawfordsburn hospital and other proposals for North Down. Those hospitals would seriously affect the health services in the area and were a blunder by the health board.
Those proposals resulted in disagreement and continuing protest from me led to the suspension of the plan. The officials of the health board are rethinking their proposals. Perhaps they hope that people will forget the outcry and slip the proposals in again. If the health board, backed by the Department of Health, intends to force that plan on the people of North Down it will get a militant, short and blunt reply. Bureaucracy heeds only militant talk.
The officials of the board have suggested that its proposals were prompted by the embarrassment of having 80 unused additional beds at the Ulster hospital at Dundonald as a result of the extension provided when it denied the money needed for the Bangor, Newtownards and Crawfordsburn hospitals. Those beds should have been provided in the hospitals I have mentioned. There should be a decent hospital service in North Down. I demand a fair deal for the people of Bangor, Newtownards and the surrounding areas of North Down where the population is increasing at a remarkable rate. People deserve proper and adequate hospital and Health Service facilities. They need them in North Down and elsewhere, but I speak for the people of North Down, although I shall put in a word for the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. People are entitled to have local hospitals. If the only way that the people of North Down will achieve a fair deal is for Belfast, which swallows up so many millions of pounds, to be taken out of the Eastern health board area, let that happen as quickly as possible.
There are many skilled and talented people in hospital management and the medical services in Northern Ireland and the Minister should listen more to them and less to bureaucratic officials. There is a clear need for direct and regular access by the medical profession—doctors, nurses and others—to the Minister and the Department.
The health board has to cope with the consequences of misdirected capital projects foisted on it by the Department, but education also suffers. The nil growth envisaged by the latest public expenditure White Paper means that education boards are getting the lowest proportion of Government spending, at 15·3 per cent., since 1971.
In the current financial year the five education boards have been required to educate more than 300,000 children and run public libraries and youth clubs on a budget that the Department has reduced by about £7 million. That is in addition to the £11 million cuts made in 1981–82 and it takes no account of the revenue generated by increasing

the price of school meals to 55p. I will not go off on a tangent about the price and nature of school meals. I have mentioned that before.
A great worry for education board officers is that the cash allocations are inflation-proofed to only a limited extent. If education costs, for books and other materials, teachers' salaries and the wages of other staff, rise above the amounts provided by the Government the boards will be back in the business of sacking staff and further reducing services. Natural wastage as a means of coping with expenditure cuts came to an end last year. There is no more scope for such an exercise.
The Minister of State, who is now wandering round the Chamber, kept emphasising that there has been a decline in the number of children at primary schools in Northern Ireland. Indeed, he said that the decline had only just begun, and it seems that the Department of Education is planning on the basis of a drastic reduction in the number of children at primary school in the near future. The Minister of State argued that there must be rationalisation by school authorities as rolls began to fall. Rationalisation is a euphemism for more cuts and reductions in the number of teachers. We have good teachers in Northern Ireland, and instead of putting them out of work we should use them to give instruction to our young people and to provide them with the best education in the world.
Northern Ireland has the best education system in the United Kingdom. The standard of performance in our schools is certainly better than that in England and I believe that it is better than the standards in Scotland and Wales as well. We do not want Government cuts and tampering to reduce that high standard.
I do not have the figures for the population in Northern Ireland. I am not certain that they are falling to the extent that the Minister predicted. Although the numbers may be falling elsewhere in the Province, the enormous increase in the population of North Down means that the school population in my constituency will not fall. It has increased and will continue Io increase. I fear that as a result of the dictatorial attitude—as I am a reasonable person I can describe it as such—of the Department of Education, school children and potential school children in my area will not have as good an education as their predecessors.
The result of the Government's plans, if what the Minister has said is right, is that the grammar schools in my area will suffer. There are not enough places in the grammar schools at present. There have not been enough places for a number of years for all the children who wish to go and who are qualified to go to the grammar schools. The primary and secondary schools in the main areas of my constituency need to be enlarged. Therefore, instead of talking about cuts, I should like to hear the Minister say that there will be increased expenditure on education, on schools and on providing more teachers and better facilities.

Mr. Adam Butler: The hon. Gentleman referred to my comments about a fall in the number of children at school and to the need for rationalisation. He has confirmed that we need rationalisation. In Belfast there are sharply declining rolls. The hon. Gentleman said that in his constituency there had been an increase in the school population. If that is not a sound reason for rationalisation, I do not know what is.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the White Paper, which spells out the position on pupil numbers. It is quite easy to predict what the numbers will be. I shall give two figures to illustrate the decline. The total number of pupils in 1979–80 was 363,000. The forecast for 1984–85 is a reduction to 344,000. However, the White Paper also shows that the pupil-teacher ratio will remain the same, which is important.

Mr. Kilfedder: Hon. Members and other people are right to regard words such as "rationalisation" as meaning cuts. I am glad that the Minister has given a clear assurance that more money will be spent on providing places at schools in North Down, extensions, more teachers and better facilities for our young people. They deserve that because, despite all the television pictures of children throwing stones in Northern Ireland, the children in most of Northern Ireland are well behaved. Considering that they are growing up against a background of terrorism, they deserve all the support that can be given to them.
Rural schools have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I agree wholeheartedly with him. For years, even when there was a Stormont Government in power, I was fighting for the retention of rural schools. I did not make too much headway with the old Stormont Government, nor with any Administration since, either Conservative or Labour. I fear that the Government are no different.
Recently I led a delegation from Ballycranbeg primary school to meet the Minister responsible for education. That is one more primary school that is being closed. It is ironic that at a time of severe education cuts the Department is to continue its socially disastrous policy of closing small rural and village schools and must pay out increased sums on school transport to take a greater number of children to more distant central schools. A new primary school at Killinchy is to cost £600,000. One or two fewer teachers will be employed than at the existing five smaller schools that are to be replaced. More children will spend more time waiting for the school bus, more time travelling to and from school and more time in which they could be led into bad behaviour. It takes only one boy on a bus to influence the others and lead them astray. That is what the parents fear will happen at Ballycranbeg and the other small schools that I mentioned.
The five smaller schools that would have cost less than £600,000 to improve will fall into disuse. It would have been much better for the Government to spend £600,000 to keep them open so that they would remain the heart of the community. No one in the community wishes the change. It is being made because someone believes that eight or nine teachers in one school is better than 10 teachers in five schools. In primary education, apparently, big is beautiful and bigger is even more beautiful. The social consequences to the community are ignored by the Department of Education, but anxious and sensible people cannot ignore or discount the effect on a community if a school is closed. When parents wave goodbye to their children, they are waving goodbye to the future of their community as a real, meaningful social unit, which is very sad.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I shall deal with the matter in more

detail later, but it is worth mentioning one factor that the hon. Gentleman ignored. I take into account economic and social factors and the hon. Gentleman knows that I listened carefully to the social argument put forward in this case. However, if he reads the backcloth paper on education, he will see that education arguments were given the most weight. The worry about the tiny schools is that they cannot offer the width of educational background to the young people. Where possible, in primary schools we should have one teacher for each age band. The two-teacher schools have many disadvantages and, although I do not say that all should be closed, we must examine the justification for keeping open each one.

Mr. Kilfedder: I have already paid tribute to the Minister for meeting the latest delegation. I have brought many delegations and he has nearly always agreed to meet them. He has been sympathetic and has gone out of his way to be as helpful as possible, but unfortunately his policy is the same as that followed by the previous Administration and by the Stormont Government. Everything should be done to maintain rural schools.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proof of the educational advantage was seen in the success of the rural schools and is not now seen in the schools that have grown out of the merging of the smaller schools? The number of pupils who went on to grammar schools was higher when we had more small local schools.

Mr. Kilfedder: I agree with the hon. Member. There was greater personal attention in the small rural schools. There was a sanction as well because the boys and girls attending primary schools were close to home. The teachers were close to the parents and the parents were close to the teachers. It was one small unit and every possible encouragement was given to the children to get on well at school.
The Minister has responded to a number of my questions for written answer on higher education in Northern Ireland. I am concerned about the dictatorship of the Department of Education. I have used that term already, but I use it again to describe the amalgamation of the new University of Ulster and the Ulster polytechnic. None of the Minister's replies nor Chilver or the Minister's statement on Chilver has provided any evidence that amalgamation is the answer to any of the supposed problems facing either institution. They are "supposed" problems, because I do not believe that they exist in reality.
I predict that the new university will become more militant in its opposition to the proposed amalgamation, which will destroy a university which in a relatively short period, and despite enormous difficulties, has secured British and international recognition. I intend to return to this issue in due course. I plead with the Minister to suspend all action on the proposed amalgamation until the Assembly meets.
In his opening speech, the Minister of State referred to housing in Northern Ireland. He and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), the Opposition's spokesman, had a political argument about how many houses were built in the Province by successive Conservative and Labour Governments. The Ulster people are tired of being used by the two main political parties for their political battles. The Ulster people want results. The


main political parties here do not put forward candidates in Northern Ireland. If they did, I would not object to their using Northern Ireland as a political arena.

Mr. Soley: This is a bit much. The Minister and I were not having a battle in the way that the hon. Gentleman has implied. The Ulster Unionists generally had responsibility for housing for many years, but successive Labour and Conservative Governments found that housing in the Province was appalling. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen about party organisation, when are the Ulster Unionists to start organising in Britain?

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is fond of statistics. He should compare the number of substandard houses and the number of houses that were needed when Stormont was in existence with the number of substandard houses and the number of houses that are needed now. If he does so, he will realise that the old Stormont Government, despite their financial limit and other limitations, did a much better job than Conservative and Labour Governments, even with all the powerful politicians in the two major political parties. The Minister with environmental responsibilities knows of the clamour that I have constantly raised over the desperately long housing waiting lists in the public sector and the hardship for those living in deplorable housing conditions and for young married couples.
Another major problem is the sorry condition of many Housing Executive dwellings in my constituency and throughout the Province. How much will be spent on repairing these houses and renovating them? What estimate has been made of the sum required to renovate all the houses in the Province? The Minister has an enormous Department. I do not think that the people of Northern Ireland realise the extent of it. He has kindly taken the trouble to inspect some of the substandard housing conditions and lack of facilities in some areas in my constituency.
The people of Northern Ireland appreciate it when a Minister goes out of his way to see their problems. On more than one occasion a ministerial visit has resulted in effective action, for instance, when the public bus was brought to the Rathgael estate in Bangor after my representations. That is only one of several such cases. I criticise Ministers, but I always like to pay a tribute as well.
We were glad to welcome the Minister when he came to Bangor recently to hand over the key to the owners of the 10,000th house sold by the Housing Executive to tenants. Ministers should be brought face to face with the people of Northern Ireland and their housing needs. How will the money be spent that is raised by the sale of those 10,000 houses and all the others that will be sold in Northern Ireland? I hope that it will be used to build and renovate houses in my area and other areas.
Not long ago we were glad to welcome the Minister at the new housing development by Habintag—one of the voluntary housing associations which provide homes for the elderly, the disabled and people in similar need. The presence of the Minister on that unique occasion was greatly encouraging.
There is a widespread rumour in North Down, which perhaps exists elsewhere in Northern Ireland, that the Housing Executive intends to even up all rents. I call on the Minister to deal with that allegation. A century or more

ago great hardship was caused when landlords increased farm rents after tenants had improved their dwellings and the farms themselves. The way in which landlords took money from the people at that time was iniquitous, and when the tenant farmer could not pay he and his family were ejected from their home in a harrowing way.
I do not picture that happening in Northern Ireland today, but I warn the Government not to authorise the Housing Executive to increase rents on old houses to bring them into line with newly built houses or to increase rents of tenants who have improved their homes by their own efforts.

Mr. John Dunlop: I should like first to express my gratitude to hon. Members on the Government Benches for what could be termed "cross-community support". It would seem that some must have had a look at my script before they made their speeches, leaving me with less time, for which, perhaps, the House will be grateful.
I am reminded of the man who slipped into a church service halfway through the sermon—that is sometimes a good idea—leant over the pew in front and asked how long the minister had been preaching. The old fellow in front scratched his head and said that he had been preaching for about 35 years, to which the man replied, "He should soon be quit, so I think I'll stay." That is a sort of parable.
It is known that the southern education and library board based in the city of Armagh intends to carry out major extensions to Cookstown high school. They are estimated to cost just under £3 million—a pretty hefty sum of money for that area.
There are at least four construction firms in the Cookstown area that are capable of carrying out that work, but they are precluded from tendering by the arbitrary decision of the education board. One of the contractors, Mr. Samuel Lyle, said that this meant that the contract would be going to an outsider and therefore few, if any, new jobs would be created in the area which at the moment was one of the Province's worst unemployment black spots. That is true because unemployment there is the second highest in the United Kingdom. He said:
An outside contractor is naturally going to bring the bulk of his workforce with him to Cookstown. In addition, he would most likely acquire his supplies from outside firms with the result that local builders' suppliers, electrical and plumbing firms would also be losing out on the contract.
That is also true.
I ask the Minister to use his office and authority to demand that local contractors at least have a chance to compete for such work. I speak on behalf of the unemployed in that notoriously needy area.
There will be no hope or help for them if the measure is approved. The Minister has the power and authority to deal with the matter. When it was brought to the attention of the board its spokesman said that no letters of appeal had been received from any of the contractors who had been informed by the board that they had not been short-listed. That is a technicality of which contracting firms were probably not aware. They did not know that they had to send letters of appeal formally to the board. I appeal to the Minister to pass on the demand that local contractors have the opportunity to tender for such work and at least a sportsman's chance of bringing work and a little prosperity to the Cookstown area.
Why should a non-elected board, with no responsibility to any area in Northern Ireland, have the power to deprive the people where the work is to be done and where the need is great? I ask the Minister to use his influence to ensure that such firms have a chance.
I return to the hoary question of the Strabane bypass. I attended as a witness at a public inquiry over three years ago. As yet there is no sign of the project being started. It is a prime necessity in the area. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the matter is being attended to and that the project is to be begun so that a black spot on the road between Omagh and the city of Londonderry is relieved of the terrible traffic chaos in Strabane.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was evident from the public inquiry that there was strong political pressure to prevent the project being agreed and that now that it is agreed there is a dragging of feet because of opposition from the same source?

Mr. Dunlop: There were political overtones. A throughpass with a track cut through the centre of Strabane so that heavy traffic would run through the town, its High Street and main square was suggested. That was a stupid idea and outside the rules that govern traffic on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. A bypass seems to be the answer.
Representations have also been made to me about the inadequacy of street lighting the village of Moneymore where I live. They hardly needed to be made as I know from my own experience that on the main street leading to Magherafelt and ultimately to the city of Belfast the street lighting is deplorable. In the past severe winter I had occasion two or three times to cross that street. I was taking my life in my hands due to the dark areas and the lack of sufficient street lighting.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): Just to make sure that I have correctly understood the hon. Gentleman, will he confirm that it is the street lighting in Moneymore to which he refers?

Mr. Dunlop: Yes, it is Smith Street which leads out of Moneymore and eventually to the M2 and the city of Belfast. The street lighting is wholly inadequate. It is the worst in the village. Yet that street is an important thoroughfare. I ask the Minister to take this matter on board. I was told by the roads manager in Omagh that the matter had been considered and was on the long finger. It seems to be a very long finger and it should be considerably shortened. Something must be done to improve the lighting before next winter.
I therefore urge the Minister to give special attention to the matter of the contractors in Cookstown, the Strabane bypass and the street lighting in Moneymore.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: The speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) was well trailered earlier in the debate, but it was also well worth waiting for. His final point about street lighting emphasised the case made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) about local government. Clearly, in any sensible arrangement for the government of the Province, such matters would rightly be the

responsibility of local authorities. That is no criticism of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, as he is the only person who can raise his constituency problems with the Minister. We seem to find difficulties in relation to Northern Ireland as soon as we start treating it differently from the rest of the United Kingdom.
That was not, however, the main thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who took the guise of a Labour mermaid enticing Treasury Ministers to inflate the economy. I hope that Ministers will turn their faces against that, as those who will be hardest hit by further doses and injections of inflation into the economy, particularly in Northern Ireland, will be the unemployed.
I was delighted to hear from the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) that sales of homes by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive had reached 10,000 and that the Minister had recently visited Bangor and presented the keys for the 10,000th sale. I represent a new town constituency in which the development corporation and the local council between them have sold 3,000 homes. I am delighted at the progress that has been made in spreading home ownership in another part of the United Kingdom. I have one question on that subject. Can the Minister say something about the continuing flow of applications for house purchase?
I want to raise a number of disparate subjects, as the debate seems to be somewhat far-ranging. The first is tourism, which my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned in passing. Tourism should be encouraged in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is a beautiful part of the United Kingdom, and her people are very hospitable, as I have found on the number of occasions that I have visited it.
Between 1972 and 1979 tourism continued to prosper, with the number of visitors rising from about 435,000 to 728,000 in 1979, but then it rather fell away. In 1980 the figure was 710,000, and last year it was estimated to be only 588,000. Will my hon. Friend underline the importance of tourism to the economy of Northern Ireland? I believe that 8,000 to 10,000 people are directly employed in the industry. There are 7,500 registered bedrooms in hotels, guest farms and country houses in the Province. We should like to know more about what the Government are doing to encourage tourism there.
Then there is the related matter of air links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke about the sea links, and I underline what he said about the welcome for those sea links, but I stress the importance of air links with the Province. The high price of the standard air fare on the London to Belfast route is appalling. I know that this matter has been raised several times.
I am still worried about the security arrangements that have to be made for British Airways crews who refuse to stay in the Province after the last flight into Belfast. Perhaps I might quote here the "Statement of Views on Air Passenger Services," of February 1979, of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, paragraph 4.8:
We are aware that British Airways incur very considerable costs through the refusal of certain of their employees to stay overnight in the Province, and of the widely held belief that these costs have contributed to recent fare increases. We have taken this matter up with the airline's top management, and have received assurances that these costs are not attributed to the Northern Ireland services. Any departure from this position, involving an attempt to recover the costs by surcharging the Northern Ireland services, would be a matter of grave concern


and would, we trust, receive the attention of Government. We feel that we must record that we share the view of many travellers that the situation arising from the attitude of the British Airways employees concerned involves not only a deplorable waste of resources but can, by upsetting flight schedules, be a source of inconvenience and much resentment to the airline's customers. We trust that all concerned will soon accept that the situation is not justified by the present conditions in Northern Ireland.
That situation still pertains today, three years after that report was written. It rightly goes on to say that the council was not asking for a Government subvention of money to cover the cost of air travel. My point is that by the better and more efficient use of resources—and by taking a different line concerning the overnight stay—something better might come out of it for the public travelling between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. It might well help also to contribute towards increased tourism, linking back to the first point that I raised.
I welcome, as do many hon. Members, the removal of the petty restrictions about hand luggage in the cabins of aircraft. I think that we should place on record a tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade, and to the Northern Ireland Ministers concerned, for making sure that that petty, cumbersome and very annoying restriction was removed.
Turning from one form of flight to another, I should like to mention the poultry industry, particularly with regard to Newcastle disease.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That has nothing to do with County Down.

Mr. Proctor: I was not intending to suggest that it has, but I am grateful for that observation and will try to draw a link between the Province and the rest of the United Kingdom in regard to Newcastle disease, even though I fully accept the assurance that it has nothing to do with County Down.
For a long time the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic were both free of Newcastle disease and maintained a ban on the import of all poultry and poultry products, including eggs, in order to protect domestic poultry from the disease. I am not quite sure when the disease was introduced into Great Britain, although I understand that Great Britain's policy of attempting to eradicate the disease by compulsory slaughter commenced in about 1947, which happens to be the year of my birth. The policy failed, and a policy of vaccination followed in 1962. It was retained even during the Newcastle disease epidemic in 1970–71.
Recently, a case has been brought before the European Court of Justice, and it so happens that yesterday judgment was given in the European Court. Herein lies the link with Northern Ireland. The case was brought by the EEC Commission and the intention was that judgment should be given against the whole of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, but that was not what happened. Great Britain had reintroduced a ban on poultry and poultry products. The EEC Commission objected on the ground that it was against the trading rules of the EEC and brought an action against the United Kingdom as a whole, but the judgment given yesterday relates only to Great Britain. It does not relate to Northern Ireland and does not relate to the Republic of Ireland.
Will the Minister tell us by what right the European Court is able to give a judgment in relation to part of a kingdom and not to the whole of it? What representations

have been made by the Government with regard to that extraordinary judgment, which seeks to drive a wedge into the United Kingdom? It is an important constitutional matter and I should be very grateful if the Minister would give careful consideration to it.
Will the Minister be kind enough to repeat the assurance given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8 July to the right hon. Member for Down, South that the Government will endeavour to ensure that the Common Market does not impose differential arrangements with regard to Newcastle disease upon Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Minister made it clear that she agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. I should like an assurance, now that that judgment has been given, that the position remains the same.
I come now to the representations that have been made by the Royal Pigeon Racing Association, most recently in June—

Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman progresses too fat from the point that he made about the driving of wedges, will he remind the Minister that Northern Ireland has a sheepmeat regime different from that pertaining in the rest of the United Kingdom? The regime in Northern Ireland is the same as that in the Republic. It was forced upon Northern Ireland by what can only be described as a process of blackmail because of the vast amount of struggling of sheep across the united land frontier. The Government gave into that blackmail rather than take action to control the frontier, which would have been the proper means of dealing with the problem.

Mr. Proctor: I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) about the regime in Northern Ireland being different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Royal Pigeon Racing Association is worried about the unrestricted right of entry into England, Scotland and Wales of pigeons from the Republic of Ireland. The association feels that the time is ripe for reciprocal treatment, thus allowing its Northern Ireland members to enjoy fully their hobby of racing and showing pigeons.
By virtue of the restrictions to which I have referred, Northern Ireland members of this distinguished association are prevented from obtaining the return of pigeons that have missed their way in races and entered the lofts of pigeon fanciers in the rest of Great Britain. They are prevented from purchasing new bloodstock lines from the three home countries. They are prevented from taking part in international pigeon shows held in the home countries and are therefore denied the chance to participate in the Great Britain team entered in the biennial world olympiads. In 1981 the olympiad was held in Tokyo. In 1983 it will be held in Prague. This may seem a small issue, but I hope that the Minister will address himself to matters that affect many people in Northern Ireland.
I should like to comment briefly on the proposed Assembly. I asked during my hon. Friend's introductory remarks if he could give the cost of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the first year of its operation. If that information cannot be provided today, I should be grateful if the figure could De sent to me in writing in due course.
This is the first opportunity that I have had to comment on the Assembly since the passage through the House of the Northern Ireland Bill. At the end of his speech on Third Reading my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
I hope that the scars that it may have caused on the Government side of the House can be quickly healed in the attempt that we are making to bring to a deserving group within the United Kingdom an opportunity for the political advancement and political stability which it has lacked for so long.
I want to place on record that there can be no scars on me—and I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends take the same view—because there were no wounds either received or given. There was a genuine disagreement about the way forward in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend also said:
It is in the spirit of asking my hon. Friends, once the Bill is enacted, to give it a fair wind, to try to help it to work and to try to give the people of Northern Ireland the confidence to work it that I commend it to the House."—[Official Report, 29 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 832.]
Alas, I cannot share my right hon. Friend's confidence about the Assembly and its future. The House will be aware that I criticised the notion of rolling devolution because it was not clear where it would roll and in which direction the Secretary of State was proposing to head. Aware of the depressing background to the history of government in the Province, my right hon. Friend has made a tentative attempt to inch ahead with what I consider to be an ill-conceived and ill-defined mutant constitutional structure, uncertain of the consequences and wary of the reaction of the people and politicans of Ulster. In the same way, the Bill fiddles and tinkers with the delicate question of Northern Ireland, and that is well set out in the Assembly that we see likely to come into operation after 20 October and the elections to be held then.
The limited horizon which the legislation and the Assembly impose initially can only provoke trouble and concomitant unpopularity for the Government in the Province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going too far. He may discuss not the principle but the amount of money that the Assembly will cost. It is out of order to engage in a re-run of our debates over several days and nights a few weeks ago.

Mr. Proctor: I am attempting to make a short speech and not a long one, although, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when occasion requires it I can make a long onete. I do not wish to delay the House for too long and, of course, I shall abide by your ruling and stay in order. My difficulty is that the question that I asked at the outset of the debate still has not been answered. Therefore, it is difficult for me to make meaningful comments about the cost of the Northern Ireland Assembly when my hon. Friends have yet to let me know what the costs are likely to be.

Mr. Adam Butler: To spare the House a lengthy speech from my hon. Friend, I can tell him that for the rest of the current financial year, assuming that the Assembly comes into operation in the autumn, the figure is £1 miliion, approximately.

Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that for what, give or take a few weeks, must be

half a financial year the cost at the outset is estimated to be £1 million. That is an awful lot of money for what will become a talking shop and a power-sharing institution that cannot possibly work. In the light of the total sum spent in Northern Ireland, £1 million may seem a drop in the ocean. To anyone outside the House discussing his personal budget, £1 million is a lot of money. I believe that every penny of that £1 million will be a waste of money and that within 12 months we shall be back again in the House debating just those subjects that we have debated at such length, but that we shall be £1 million or more the poorer as a result.

Mr. William Ross: When I started to look at the debate on the draft Appropriation order my eyes chanced upon a written answer on 8 July given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that contained the information:
In the period 1 April 1979 to 31 March 1982 £338 million is estimated to have been paid to farmers in the less favoured areas of the United Kingdom under the support schemes for agriculture in those areas.
I do not want to weary the House with argument as to whether that is the total paid to farmers in those areas or just in relation to the less favoured areas scheme. It is a matter of debate. It is a great deal of money. The Parliamentary Secretary then gave a further answer which said:
We hope shortly to be able to submit our case for extension to Brussels. As I have said in answer to a number of earlier questions, however, there is still no Government commitment to provide additional aid to any marginal areas which may eventually be designated as less favoured.—[Official Report, 8 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 201–2.].
The second answer referred to a question relating to the United Kingdom as a whole. If I were to put that question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I should be answered in precisely those terms. Hon. Members have received answers in those terms for what seems many years. A survey of the less—favoured areas went on and on until we became utterly weary of asking when the matter would be finished. The survey was finished rapidly in Northern Ireland, but slowly in the rest of the United Kingdom. We now have to continue asking questions as to when we shall receive the results of the survey and when an application for an extension will be sent to Brussels.
It is an inordinate delay. It may not be costly to farmers in Northern Ireland, but I cannot understand the reasons for the delay. There is a rumour in the farming community that it arises from the reluctance of certain people in Scotland to apply for an extension until the Government are prepared to make more money available, and give a commitment that the present rate of grant will apply to the extended area rather than spread the existing money more thinly over the larger area. Until then, the farming community in Scotland will remain dissatisfied.
That appears to fit into the jigsaw. There must be some logical reason for the failure to send the case forward. Someone must have a good financial reason for opposing an extension of the less-favoured areas. I am a farmer and have an interest in this matter, as my farm is just on the limit of the less favoured area. It is on the wrong side of the limit as it happens, but that does not affect me as much as it would if I were actually farming it. I am not the only person in such circumstances. I appreciate that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Those whose lands were in good


condition when the line was initially drawn may—because they were good farmers—have found their farms on the wrong side of the line. Everyone in the farming community can point to many such cases.
However, there is no doubt that farmers who have received the greatly increased grants have benefited enormously over the years and in many cases their lands are indistinguishable from those in the more-favoured areas which may be just across the hedge.
The Government must make up their mind about the entension of the less-favoured areas and be truthful about their intentions in relation to the sums to be made available. The matter has dragged on for far too long. The buck goes round in circles and never stops anywhere for long. It appears that no one is prepared to make a decision. A decision should be made and we should be told either that the Government are prepared to extend the areas, but there is no money available, or that they are prepared to extend the areas and there is money available. At least we would know where we were.
If this were a debate on agriculture alone we could explore other ways of drawing the line or changing the boundaries. This is not the time for that, but is time for a decision to be made by the Government. It does no one any good for the matter to drag on as it has for the past four or five years.
About 96 per cent. of County Fermanagh has less-favoured area status, but less than half of Northern Ireland as a whole is a less-favoured area. Considering how well the Republic has done out of extensions, if something is to be done for agriculture in Northern Ireland, there is no better place to start than on this issue. Please can we have a quick and clear decision, even if increased money is not available immediately?
Some money is available from the EEC and if we do not spend it we can be blooming sure that someone else will do so. I resent the fact that money is lying about and could be obtained for this country if the Government were prepared to make a commitment to the farming community in Northern Ireland.
The trouble with money from the EEC is that it is not always given to projects that we would consider wise and it is not always spent to the best advantage. The Minister must have misgivings about that. The Agricultural Development in Less-Favoured Areas Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1981, which were made on 15 December 1981, and came into operation on 1 January this year, relate to the money that came from the EEC for improving transport and communications in more remote areas.
Most of that money seems to have been spent on laying concrete farm lanes in Northern Ireland. There was a generous grant of 60 per cent. and if farmers did some work themselves they found that they were able to provide a cheap concrete lane to their farm houses.
However, I am sure that the Minister's officials have drawn his attention to the concern that they felt when they looked at some of the lanes that were concreted. It was all legal and good jobs were done, but I wonder whether all those lanes were necessary and whether the money was spent to the best advantage in some places.
Remote farmhouses in hilly areas require better roads and concrete or tarmac are the best materials, but in some cases roads of that quality were taken into fields. That is surely not the best way to spend money.
I would have preferred to see an increase in the grant for erecting farm buildings in those areas than the foolish spending of money. Much of it has been spent wisely. I hope that on future occasions, if such money becomes available, tighter regulations will be laid down and better advice will be given to those who apply for it. If the money were restricted to farmhouses or farm buildings only, I would have no objection. However, the money could have been spent in a better way. There has been some waste.
The farming community in Northern Ireland is not in the best of shape. We have had difficulties for a long time. One may say that there was not much of a fall in income last year or even that it improved last year, but if it has improved, it has improved from disastrously low levels. Agriculture is cyclical in some respects. The catastrophic fall over the past few years must be arrested permanently and turned in the opposite direction.
The number of beef cows from 1974 until the census in December 1981 fell from 339,000 to 201,000, a fall of between 37 per cent. and 40 per cent. That is disastrous by any standards. It is only one aspect. I hope that something will be done to try to improve the production of beef cows, and profitability, and to reverse that disastrous course. An attempt should be made to increase the number of livestock on the farms in Northern Ireland. That livestock consists not only of cows, but of sheep, pigs and poultry. There is a continuing problem of cheap food for the highly specialised farm industries of pigs and poultry.
The Minister will know that there is an argument about cheap substitutes at present. Manioc has been mentioned most frequently. It could be made available. I am not sure what the position is at present but I hope that if there is a possibility of getting cheap feeding stuff for those intensive sectors of Northern Ireland agriculture the Minister will go far out of his way to see that the maximum benefit can be derived from that source for the farming community, because it is needed. The intensive sectors in Northern Ireland were built up on cheap grain imports from North America. We have lost them and we have suffered grievously since then.
Education has been mentioned in the debate. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) referred to it on a constituency basis. The Minister responsible for education in the Northern Ireland Office, the Under-Secretary of State, intervened to say that educational aspects had weighed heaviest when school closures were considered. It is a pity that those educational aspects seem to weigh heavily only when the Government are considering school closures They do not seem to weigh heavily when they are considering extensions to schools and the provision of new schools.
There are plans for the provision of a new primary school in Limavady in my constituency. It was 18 months before the local education board was told by the Department that the original plans were no good and that they had to be redrawn. We still do not have our new primary school. It is three or four years late. We are looking forward to an announcement about it. We are also looking forward to an announcement that extra money will be made available to extend the small rural school at Bellarena. The land for the extension has been purchased and is available now. All we need is the money. That school could be kept open and made more viable provided that we now take the opportunity to carry out the necessary building to bring it to the appropriate standard. The school


is at the centre of a series of schools that have closed in recent years. The Minister responsible for the environment also has a part to play in housing policy with regard to schools and the social breakdown of the community. We must also examine the number of private houses now being built in rural areas because more people are moving out of the towns, albeit not very far.
My comments about the primary school system were sparked off by what the hon. Member for Down, North said. However, my main point is about that part of the Chilver report that dealt with the New University of Ulster in Coleraine. I condemned the report as a knocking exercise against the New University of Ulster. A clear picture is now emerging. The Chilver report was not an end in itself, but it confronted us with a series of questions about the future of higher education in Ulster, not least about education just below university level.
I am increasingly curious about the reasoning behind the proposed merger. Why is it necessary and what will be its result? It has not been welcomed by those most closely involved. What are the NUU and the Ulster polytechnic supposed to do? How are they to be funded? Will there be any alternatives? What can be done to stop the drain of students? Will they be replaced by an inward flow of students to Northern Ireland? What is the result of wiping out the university rather than changing its charter?
The Minister will be deluged with comments on the proposals. He said in reply to a written question of my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) on 8 June that he saw no insoluble problems. Is he now questioning some of the assumptions that he made, because he dismissed too lightly the description of the hon. Member for Down, North on 1 April that a gun was being put to the head of the university? If he dismisses that description of the pressures that were brought to bear on the university, perhaps he will accept the alternative description of "Hobson's choice". The proposal was: "Submit to the pressure or close". He made it clear that his mind was made up in reply to a recent intervention of mine.
We have not been told about the shape, control, co-ordination or the planning for future higher education in Ulster. I cannot understand the reasoning behind the decision to merge the NUU and the polytechnic. The structure will be stretched from one side of Ulster to the other, with part in Londonderry, part in the polytechnic at Jordanstown and part somewhere in the middle at Coleraine.
Every facet of the Chilver report and the Government decisions that flow from it have been subjected to penetrating and successful attacks, especially on finance and the many statistics contained within it. Every conclusion has been questioned and many weaknesses have already been ruthlessly exposed. I can do no better than to quote from the Bulletin issued by the NUU on 22 April, which was a special edition. One part of it states:
Thankfulness at the report's appearance was offset by the inadequacy and inaccuracy of much of its content and by the declared aim of the Government that the university should merge with the Ulster Polytechnic or face closure. Many of the assertions in the Chilver report are quite untenable and are based on misinterpretations and misunderstandings which are surprising—and in my view disgraceful—in a report of this importance.

That was written by the vice-chancellor of the university. I do not believe that a vice-chancellor would write such words lightly. I do not believe that he would write them without having considered carefully their accuracy.
A case has been made against the Chilver report and against the conclusions that have been drawn from it. The trouble is that the Government's conclusions are not those which the Chilver report arrived at. These questions must be answered before we go much further down the road on which we seem to have embarked.
Paragraph 8 of the Chilver report states:
we believe that in practice a merger would be unlikely to be helpful either to NUU or to its Belfast partner".
There is more than that. The Chilver report is a large and interesting document that is well worthy of study. It says that the merger would not be helpful because the Belfast partner would continue to grow at the expense of the NUU. However, the Government have decided to ignore that plain statement and have tried to arrive at a Belfast and rural structure. What will be the end result? What savings will be achieved? First, such a structure cannot save money. It is clear that if we have a university with a split site—even two sites rather than three—it will cost much more money to run than a university that is all under one roof.
Secondly, it will not be possible to downgrade the teaching staff at the university in salaries and in every other way to the level of the staff at the polytechnic. On the other hand, we cannot have two different levels of staff in the same institution. That means that the polytechnic staff must be brought up to university superannuation stream level and to university salary levels. I understand that to raise the superannuation level of the polytechnic staff will cost anything up to £10 million. When we take into consideration the enormous increase that there will be in the pay of the staff of the polytechnic to bring the levels up to university levels, the sums will be staggering.
The Minister's press statement of 1 July states that the present Great Britain policy of funding higher education will be maintained and reflected in Northern Ireland. It added that there will be no significant reduction in the numbers of students at each institution and that no significant change in the nature of the mix of courses provided at each institution.
I cannot understand what the advantage is to either institution unless that statement is a deliberate misrepresentation of what the future will be. If the same funding is to persist there can be no saving—none is envisaged—and in fact it will cost more. If the number of students at each institution is to remain the same, there will be no saving there. Indeed, there might be more expense because students will have to move from one to the other on some courses. If the courses are to remain the same—they are already duplicated in some respects—there will be no saving there.
What is the theory behind this? Why on earth is it being done? What is the end result for the teaching staff? I visited the teaching staff recently and talked to some of their representatives. They seemed to be quite happy. If all that they told us is accurate, they have every right to be happy. However, I wonder whether it is as simple as is thought at present.
The teaching staff have been given assurances that their numbers will remain the same. Therefore, theoretically, there can be no saving there. How long will their numbers


remain the same? Is it intended that they will remain the same for one, two or three years, and then, when the money disappears, that half of them will be sacked?
What is the cost of getting rid of some of the teaching staff in the NUU? I have not talked to the teaching staff at the polytechnic because, as I pointed out, they will have to be brought up to university levels of pay, so it does not matter what their pay is at present. If they are got rid of in five years it will be on university terms and that is a costly business.
The teaching staff cannot be scaled down unless there is a good scheme. They will need a worthwhile golden handshake. They will not go under the present scheme because that is only worthwhile to the man over 50 and the NUU has many young people. It is a young institution that attracts young staff, few of whom are older than I am. They will not go easily and the Minister will find that many of them have security of tenure.
The Minister has appointed a group to implement the merger, but he has done so without the benefit of a feasibility study; without the benefit of information that could have been gleaned from a consideration of the concept of amalgamating the two institutions. Why has he done that? He is wrong not to have carried out a careful feasibility study into the whole question of amalgamation.
The costs involved are bound to be considerable. If the promised level of funding for some years ahead is maintained, that can result only in a cutback somewhere else, either in the teaching staff or the provision of facilities. No projections seem to have been made on the pattern of future generations of students—where they will come from, how many there will be and whether they can be kept in Northern Ireland. Such things should have been considered in greater depth.
Who welcomes this? Certainly the vice-chancellor of Queen's university does not welcome it, according to the newsletter of Wednesday 7 July. After the graduation ceremony he was reported as saying that he was surprised that the Government had decided to overturn the recommendations of the Chilver report on higher education. He said:
It was a brave and ingenious experiment, though we cannot pretend that we welcome it unreservedly".
He said much more, but I do not wish to detain the House longer than is necessary. That is sufficient to show that the vice-chancellor of Queen's is not happy.
Nor would one expect the New University of Ulster at Coleraine to be happy. No doubt the Minister had the benefit of Lord Grey's assessment. When he spoke on 8 July 1982 he made clear the university's views and pointed out that it was a good university. I shall return to that again because many people have said harsh things about the NUU—I believe, quite unjustifiably—taking part in the general knocking exercise that always seems to be indulged in against that institution.
The Association of University Teachers has published a comprehensive booklet. It is, perhaps, not as detailed as some of the many publications, but I hope that we shall have an opportunity to examine it in detail. It is called "The Errors of Childer" by Norma Reid. It is devastating in its summary, in its questions about the Lockwood committee, in its argument about the birth and age participation rates, and about financial viability. It makes some harsh criticisms of the method used by Childer when

reaching its conclusions. It is clear that the academic standards, the degree results and the A-level results of the students are high. The booklet states:
the Childer Committee in relation to NUU … has pursued its task with a lack of rigour that amounts to irresponsibility.
That is strong language. The Minister may laugh, but I do not believe that university staff, whom the Minister would be glad to quote in other contexts, use such language, or allow it to be used in their name, unless there are good reasons.
The Minister is mistaken if he thinks that people in Northern Ireland will accept lightly what is said about the university and watch it threatened so that it might not survive. We shall fight and try to maintain the widest and most sensible form of higher education.
The university has been accused of many things. What was it supposed to do? The only firm target that it was given was for 2,000 students, rising to 3,000 by 1972–73. It has achieved that, although it was a little late. It is a miracle that it ever achieved it in the middle of a war. It has done well. Is it now to be attacked, criticised and perhaps destroyed because the IRA keep blowing the country to bits, driving out many young people who might have gone there and keeping out others from Great Britain?
The standards are set by outside examiners, as they are for all universities. I have received letters from some of the examiners who speak highly of the quality of the work and the students. They say that research is excellent, some of it outstanding. The number of research papers published is astonishing for an institution of its size. The NUU has done its job, but I question whether the Government have done their duty by it.
The polytechnic had a different job. It was supposed to underpin the university structure in Northern Ireland, but it came to compete with that structure. In nearly every year the polytechnic received much more money than the NUU. The method of financing the polytechnic has been described as being like an open-ended deficiency grant, while the NUU is tightly run. The NUU has a claim for further capital grant which has not yet been met. The Minister may not wish to say anything about that today, but I am sure that he has seen all the papers. This is a matter of discontent and concern that has rumbled on for a very long time.
I have to ask whether the Department of Education in Northern Ireland failed to control expenditure at the polytechnic and to co-ordinate the various higher education courses in the manner originally envisaged between the various institutions of higher education in Northern Ireland.
I believe that the present proposal will not work. Many of the people involved, who are perhaps too polite to say in public what I am prepared to say in public, have told me that it will not work. I hope that they also said that to the Minister when he visited the New University a week ago.
We must co-ordinate higher education in Northern Ireland more closely than in the past and we must try to keep more students at home. The loss of students is astonishing. Table 5.1 of the Chilver report shows that the number of new university students going elsewhere rose from about 1,700 in 1975–76 to about 3,000 in 1980–81. The total number of students of 27 years of age and under rose to 5,000 in the same year. The university students are the most important hi this context. As the average course


lasts three to four years, the number of new students must be multiplied by three-and-a-half to determine the number of Northern Ireland students studying outside Northern Ireland in any given year. It is a very large number. It would not need many more to stay at home to make the new university extremely viable.
Other hon. Members know more about university charters than I shall ever know, but people at the New University have told me of their great worry about the present prerogative charter being cancelled and replaced by a legislative charter of a completely different nature. They do not know what the end result will be, how it will affect the university and what difference it will make to its freedoms. They assure me that it is a most dangerous course to follow and they are deeply concerned about the door that has been opened and the implications of this for other universities in the United Kingdom.
This is therefore another matter that I hope to follow up in greater depth in the very near future. The Minister may try to assure us that everything will be all right in the end, but my disquiet has been considerable since Chilver first reported and nothing that I have seen or heard since has done anything to lessen it. The Minister must produce something more clear-cut and be far more forthcoming than he has so far been if I am to be satisfied with the proposals for the New University of Ulster.
The New University has done astonishingly well in difficult circumstances. It is essential to higher education in west Ulster. It has had all the difficulties caused by a split site, not least because one site was in Londonderry. It has had a stormy birth and a stormy history, and I fear that it is not yet out of stormy weather. I hope that the Minister will have the sense to slow down a little and to ask a few more questions in the areas that I have suggested before going any further down the road on which he is currently embarked. I fear that if he continues down that road, the long-term implications for higher education in Northern Ireland will be severe and will do great damage. The result will be that university education will be so scarce in Northern Ireland that the present outflow of students from the Province will continue. For the sake of the social and economic future of Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, we do not want an outflow of students from Northern Ireland. We want an inflow from the rest of the United Kingdom. If we cut university places, particularly in a place such as Coleraine, we shall severely restrict the future inflow and cross-fertilisation that should take place in a university—an institution which I have never had the opportunity to attend.
I hope that I have managed to transmit some of my concern and worry to the Minister today. I hope that he will therefore put on the brakes and think very carefully, because, in my view, the present course will lead to disaster.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I intervene briefly, and perhaps at an appropriate moment, in view of the speech that has just been made by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I shall not reply in immense detail to the points that he raised, because, as he said, there may be other opportunities to do so, and I am aware of the constraints of time.
Before I come to the future of the NUU and the Ulster polytechnic and the plans for the new institution, I want to deal with one or two other matters that have been raised about education.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), in what must have been the best trailered speech that I have heard in the House, spoke about the contract in Cookstown and the problem of the four firms in his area which had not been asked to tender for the contract. The Southern Education Library Board is the contracting authority, and, as I understand it, it followed the usual practice of select list tendering procedures.
There are considerable advantages to all concerned, in normal circumstances, in following those procedures. They enable the contracting authority to concentrate on those firms which it feels are best fitted to contract for any tender, and they reduce to the minimum the wasted work that many contractors might otherwise have to undertake. I understand that over 50 firms expressed an interest in the contract, of which 12 were interviewed and six were selected. I cannot say whether any of the four were included in the 12 that were interviewed. All I can say is that I shall look at the latest situation on the contract and write to him about it.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) talked about the economic constraints on the education budget. Of course there are constraints. We should all like to do more in education, as in every other social service, but we have to work within the economic constraints that are imposed upon us. The Government recognise the important contribution of the education service in securing a base for any regeneration of the economy. We have, therefore, within the resources that are available, given considerable protection to the education service.
As we have already made clear to the House, the education budget has been increased by £18 million over the provision that was made in last year's White Paper. That will allow continued priority to be given to the teaching force and it will protect the pupil-teacher ratio in Northern Ireland schools. It will also provide the important input by the Department of Education into the youth training programme.
The hon. Members for Down, North and for Londonderry mentioned capital projects in their constituencies. The two priorities that I have outlined meant that there had to be constraints on the capital programmes. There are limits to what we can do. We have to ask the boards in each case to assess local needs and priorities, and we, in turn, do our best to meet them within the limited resources available on the capital side.
The hon. Member for Down, North also mentioned, in particular, two matters—standards of education in Northern Ireland, and the rationalisation programme. He paid tribute to the standards that have been achieved in Northern Ireland over the years. I add my compliments and my tribute to the teachers and to the other partners in education who have played their part in achieving those standards.
In every one of the reports by the Assessment of Performance Unit since I have been in Northern Ireland it has been shown that the seeds that were sown by former Governments, under direct rule and under Stormont, have borne fruit. The children of Northern Ireland have performed at or very close to the top of the league table


produced for the United Kingdom as a whole. That is deserving of tribute to the teachers and the other partners in education in the Province.
Both the hon. Member for Down, North and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made impassioned pleas for rural schools. The hon. Member for Antrim, North in particular referred to them as being in many ways the cement of our rural societies.
We have to recall briefly the background to the programme of rationalisation. The paper of March 1981—"Schools and Demographic Trends—A Backcloth to Planning"—outlined not only the fact that rolls were falling but that they were likely to continue to fall in both the primary and secondary school sectors for some years to come. It also referred to the change that was occurring in population patterns in Northern Ireland and to the need for rapid and concerted action to respond to those two factors.
Together with the Department of Education, I am anxious to get value for money, but much more important is the point that I raised in an intervention with the hon. Member for Down, North—the need to ensure that, with the new factors, the shift in population and the reduction in school rolls, we continue to maintain the quality of education for the children in Northern Ireland.
We recognise immediately that rural schools are different and that the criteria to be applied to the minimum size of a school to ensure its viability should be different in rural areas from that in urban areas. I have made it clear on several occasions that even those altered criteria were not to be interpreted as rigid rules to be enforced in every case, and that social questions—the length and the nature of journeys that children might have to take to new schools—should also be taken into account in final decision making.
I beg hon. Members to recognise the consequences of allowing very small schools to continue and of the increasingly restricted curriculum that primary schools would be able to offer to young people. Although reiterating the importance of rural schools, I hope that no one will be persuaded that there is anything less than an imperative for the rationalisation of schools throughout Northern Ireland as a whole. I hope that we shall see much more rapid progress in that respect than we have seen so far.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked me for a progress report on Chilver 1 and Chilver 2, as the reports are called in shorthand in Northern Ireland. With regard to the teacher training proposals of the Chilver interim report, the House will recall the background, and we have already had an opportunity to discuss it. I have been, and still am, engaged in widespread consultation with all the providers of teacher training and others who are concerned. I had hoped to be able to make a definitive statement before the House rose, but it is clear now that that will have to be delayed.
The Government have been taking stock of the widespread comments on the proposals for restructuring teacher education, and several matters still have to be resolved. I hope to have something definite to say by the autumn. I recognise the need to proceed as quickly as possible, but we are still refining forward projections for the demand of teachers in the light of the changed circumstances that have emerged since the Chilver interim report was published about two years ago.
I am also awaiting the outcome of current discussions between Stranmillis and Queen's University, Belfast, about a possible merger between those two institutions. I wish to make it clear that, while I would welcome and support any proposals that would lead to a more efficient use of existing teacher training facilities, my Department has not been directly involved in any discussions between Queen's University and the college on this issue. I hope that the House will allow me to leave the matter there. It would be inappropriate if while both the refining and the forward projections, together with the discussions, are taking place, I made any further comment today. I hope to make a full statement as soon as possible. That will be at some time in the autumn.
I return to the proposal for a new institution to replace the New University of Ulster and the Ulster polytechnic. There is a difference, as the hon. Member for Londonderry said, between the proposals of the Chilver report and the Government response. Although a great deal of the work of the Chilver report was extremely useful—its work was assidious and the results important—we did not believe that the particular proposals would give a secure and viable future for the New University of Ulster at Coleraine. I was disappointed to hear the response of the hon. Member for Londonderry. I can understand many of the worries that he mentioned, but I hope that he will see in due course that the path that the Government are taking is the only way to achieve a strong, secure and assured future for higher education at Coleraine.
The Government believe, as detailed in the statement published in March, that the consolidation of Northern Ireland's higher education system is necessary and that this can best be achieved by pooling the resources of the NUU and the Ulster polytechnic in a new institution. The merger would be a question not of one institution taking over the other, but of a new one building on the strengths of both existing institutions. The hon. Member for Londonderry raised a number of questions about the practical implementation and the problems that are undoubtedly involved in the creation of a new institution of this sort. This is why I have established a steering group to be responsible for the new planning of the university institution to replace the NUU and the Ulster polytechnic, working within whatever financial and other guidelines I may give it from time to time, and to report periodically to me.
As some hon. Members know, the chairman of the steering group is Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, Master of St. Catherine's college, Cambridge. The vice-chairman is Sir Norman Lindop, principal of the British School of Osteopathy. Of the remaining eight members, four are independent members whom I have appointed, two have been appointed following consultation with the NUU and two following consultation with the polytechnic. At the invitation of Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, both the rector of the Ulster polytechnic and the vice-chancellor of the New University of Ulster have attended meetings of the steering group as observers I hope that this situation will continue as they have already made useful contributions to the work of the steering group.
I should like to see the new institution in effective operation by September 1984. Because of the time necessary for the planning and structuring of courses, we shall need to take early decisions if that date is to be achieved. It was constantly stressed to me when I arrived in the Province the damaging effects of uncertainty upon


the New University of Ulster. If the Chilver report had been published without a response by the Government, I believe that the uncertainty and damage would have been greatly increased. I believe that the uncertainty is best resolved by making steady progress in the direction that I have indicated. If that progress were to grind to a halt, the degree of uncertainty would be greater than ever.
Already the steering group has been able to give assurances to both staff and students. To the staff it has been able to say that the new institution will be able to employ, without a drop in pay, all those who, on the changeover, are employed by either of the existing institutions. It has been able to assure students that all those embarked on courses will be able to complete them.
I suppose that the fundamental question raised by the hon. Member for Londonderry is why the Government were determined to go down this path. I emphasise that this is not a cost-cutting exercise. Many of the hon. Gentleman's questions seemed to imply that that was the main purpose of the exercise. It is not. It is to give Northern Ireland a pattern of higher education that can endure and not be subject to the uncertainties that have bedevilled it in recent years.
As I have said on a number of occasions, I do not associate myself with the knocking exercise against the New University of Ulster. I have detected signs of that during my period in the Province. I do not believe that it is the fault of the university authorities or of either of those who have held the post of vice-chancellor that the New University of Ulster has not developed in the way envisaged by the Lockwood report. Trying to do the job, being launched at the time that it was, and having to endure the political and security situation that has existed in Northern Ireland throughout its existence, I think that we can compliment those who have worked to make the success that they have of the institution.
The fact is that we have not been attracting students from outside the Province in the way that was envisaged when the institution was established. Thus, the uncertainty has grown. We would all like to see the position differently, but, even on the most optimistic assumptions, there is no prospect of a sustained increase in demand for university places in Northern Ireland. Only a dramatic increase in the age participation rate could keep numbers at their present levels with the decline in the age band of those eligible to enter university.
In this situation, apart from the pressure on resources for higher education, from which Northern Ireland cannot be exempted, the uncertainty over the future of the New University of Ulster, which has threatened its viability for some years, can only increase if clear and firm action is not taken. There is an urgent need to end this uncertainty and to provide for Northern Ireland the structural base for a flexible, responsive and above all stable system of higher education. I remain convinced, and the Government are completely satisfied, that the merger is the only sure method of achieving this important objective.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Peter Robinson.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Appropriation (No. 2) Account—[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) wish to intervene?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was wondering whether it was now the custom of the House for the Chair to call hon. Members who had not risen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If that is a point of order to me—

Mr. Powell: It is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: —I must point out that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has been in the Chamber all day and has been seeking to catch my eye regularly. I think that he was temporarily distracted by his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Mr. Robinson: You are right, of course, as always, Mr. Deputy Speaker. While other hon. Members have been flitting in and out of the Chamber, I have been here since half-past nine.
It has been said already in the debate that the Government have considered the Department of Commerce as a priority, yet there has not been a great deal of discussion during the debate about the work of the Department. I am surprised that there has not been more comment on, for instance, the Belfast shipyard of Harland and Wolff, a topic which comes up on a regular basis in these debates. Perhaps hon. Members are happy now that Harland and Wolff has achieved an improved productivity rate and that it is a worth while venture. I hope that that is so. In my view, there is a case to be made for the continuance of subsidies to the shipyard. It has been proved in financial terms that the yard costs in the region of £3,000 per job, while Government figures have shown that it costs between £5,000 and £6,000 a year to keep a man on the dole. So even in sheer financial terms the shipyard is a good proposition. Certainly in terms of keeping a yard open until an upturn in the shipbuilding market comes, supposedly in 1983 to 1985, it is important to have a viable shipyard to take the orders when they eventually come.
When the Secretary of State is prone to pass strictures on the shipyards and give advice to shipyard workers, why has he been so coy in giving an opportunity to shipyard trade unionists to take part in an all-party delegation of politicians to meet him about the shipyard industry? Will the Minister inform us whether the Secretary of State is now in a position to see such a wide-ranging delegation including, as it does, representatives of all the political parties as well as the trade unions?
The decline in shipbuilding throughout the world has had its effect outside the shipbuilding industry. Norton Abrasives, a company in my constituency, announced on 8 July its intention to close with a resultant loss of 150 jobs. It is the company's intention to cease all manufacturing in the United Kingdom. It manufactures also in the Hertfordshire area, and it intends to retain that unit as a distribution centre and to close the Belfast plant entirely. Have any grants been received in the recent past by the company from Government funds, has any assistance been requested by Norton Abrasives and has any contact been made with the trade union movement, which, I understand, is keen to have a meeting with Government officials? The loss of 150 jobs when set against a 20 per cent. unemployment figure in Northern Ireland may seem a small number but it is devastating to those homes affected by the closure.
I realise that the Minister is keen to reply and I do not want to take up time that could be used by him. Will he comment upon Class III, the rundown of the gas industry and the subsidies given to the electricity industry? The coal board has commented that it receives little or no subsidy from the Government whereas fairly large amounts are given to the gas and electricity boards. The Coal Advisory Service in Northern Ireland points out that if it were to receive the same level of subsidy as gas and electricity it could give coal away free in Northern Ireland. Is it not unfair to the coal industry to give an advantage to other competitive domestic fuels? Electricity and gas are the competitors of the coal industry for domestic heating. Does the Government intend to make any gesture towards the Northern Ireland coal industry?
With regard to the Department of the Environment housing services I want to raise a matter that will not appear immediately to be of major interest. I want to speak about a wall. I am sure that that is already ringing a bell in the ears of the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment when I tell him that it is in Cluan Place. The Minister is one of the most hardworking Ministers that we have had in Northern Ireland. He is not only prepared to go out when he is asked, but when he receives communications he goes of his own free will to look at the problem. That is appreciated by not only the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland but by the people themselves.
The Minister visited Cluan Place which, in local terms, is a border area—an interface between Republican and Loyalist communities. There have been shootings and stonings across the divide and a member of the local residents association was shot dead in his shop. It is an area of considerable community tension, which those in the area say comes mainly from the Roman Catholic area of Short Strand. There is significant support for that view from the RUC and no doubt the Minister sought the views of the security forces when considering the matter that I drew to his attention.
The Housing Executive, which has the responsibility for a new site in the area, decided that it would build a landscaping wall between the two communities. Knowing the problems that had occurred in the area, the local residents thought that a higher wall would provide more safety than the 2½ metre wall proposed by the executive.
When the Minister toured the area the residents drew his attention to the problems and were given a sympathetic response. The Minister confirmed to me in a letter shortly afterwards that he was prepared
to arrange for the Housing Executive to increase the height to 4½ metres on having your confirmation that this would meet the concern of your constituents.
That was a ready response, given freely by a Minister who had viewed the problem at first hand.
My constituents believed that in a democratic State they could take the Minister's word. Knowing the Minister concerned, they were confident that his decision would be implemented and that no one higher up would say that it could not be done. Unfortunately, that was not the case.
Under direct rule, bureaucracy has grown to such an extent that many people in the bureaucracy—I will not call them jumped-up civil servants—believe that their entitlement to take decisions is greater than that of a Minister and they seek not only to advise him, but to change his decisions.
The Housing Executive, which opposed the increased height of the wall, started a campaign to get the Minister's decision reversed. It tried first to get local residents to agree to a lower wall. They would not agree, but I assume that the executive told the Minister that an agreement had been reached, because he wrote to me:
I understand that the Housing Executive have already been in touch with you about increasing the height of the wall and that you indicated your agreement to whatever was acceptable to the local residents. The latter have in fact now agreed to a height of approximately 3½ metres, with the proviso that if it does not prove sufficiently high further work can be carried out accordingly.
The Housing Executive did not have the agreement of the local residents, who have always asked for the height that the Minister was prepared to allow. There is concern in the area, which has suffered death as a result of community tensions, that the Minister has been overruled by his civil servants and the staff of the Housing Executive. Will the Minister stand by the undertaking that he gave me in writing and prove that the bureaucracy in Northern Ireland has not run out of control?
The Minister of State said that 10,000 houses that were formerly in public ownership had been purchased by their tenants. That is a good sign, but, as we now have 10,000 fewer houses to maintain and administer, has there been a decrease in the number of staff in the Housing Executive? Does he expect that as further houses are sold, there will be such a decrease in Housing Executive staff?
I believe that the Minister will accept the comment made by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) that in an area where many houses have been sold there is an expectancy by the public representatives of the area that money gained by the Housing Executive through house sales in that area should be put back into that area. I understand that that is not so. I come from an area that takes in Castlereagh, where most house sales have taken place. I would be keen that the money should be ploughed back into the area where the houses are sold rather than being put into a pot and divided equally throughout the Province. Will the Minister be prepared to give us an undertaking that the money is put into the budgets of the regions that are selling houses rather than distributed throughout the Province?
Rent levels in Northern Ireland are a matter of considerable concern to tenants. A recent rent assessment method that is being sent to tenants for their comments and also to public representatives for their consideration has given rise to the fear of many tenants that it is a new method for the Government to increase rents in the guise of a new rent assessment method. Will the Minister make it clear that there could be a decrease of rents as a result rather than an increase?
I am afraid that the Minister will have to accept that tenants' associations throughout the Province, which have campaigned for a long time for a rent freeze, have a case that needs only to be stated to be accepted. Rents in Scotland are higher than those in Northern Ireland, yet the cost of living is much higher in Northern Ireland than in Scotland and wages are much lower in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the case can easily be made for a rent freeze in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister confirm that if the Housing Executive is considering freezing the rents fix one year there will be no intervention by his Department or him to force rent increases on it, as has occurred in the past?
Recently, I tabled a question asking for the figures for squatting in certain estates. In the Twinbrook estate in West Belfast there are 10 times as many squatters as in the whole of East Belfast which is my constituency. In one housing estate in West Belfast, 200 people are squatting. What steps is the Minister taking and what consultations has he had with the police to get to the root of the problem? Is he considering a new law to enable convictions to be made? I understand that the method employed by the squatters is that they wait for the legal notice to be served on them at the address where they have squatted, then they switch houses with someone else on whom a legal notice has been served, so that the whole legal process must start again. What steps will the Minister take to deal with squatting, which is theft of public property?
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned contracts in which a percentage was added on by building firms to take account of security firms that required money or, in other words, the protection rackets in some areas of Belfast and outside. I recently wrote to the Secretary of State with the names of a number of so-called security firms that had on their board of directors notable people such as former dirty protesters, people known to have links with the Provisional IRA and the INLA and, for the benefit of the Opposition spokesman, representatives of paramilitary groups on the Loyalist side. The Secretary of State forwarded that list to the chief constable. What further steps is the Minister taking to stop protection rackets on building contracts?
When one comments publicly on such matters one often hears from people who are experiencing the same problem. This morning I received a letter from a building contractor who said that he was asked to pay £250 a week by a security firm that told him that he needed security on a site in my constituency. He refused to pay the money and said that he did not need the firm's services. Subsequently three of his machines were destroyed and a site hut was burned down at a cost of £40,000. He has now closed the site, but he cannot move his men to other sites nearby because he knows that the same problem will occur. That was his only contract so he must lay off his staff and the remainder of his plant will stand idle.
As there is a great need for housing in my constituency—my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North confirmed that there are more people on housing waiting lists in East Belfast than in any other constituency—I take it ill that paramilitary organisations of whatever political persuasion should take action that will delay much-needed accommodation for people who live in crowded conditions and in houses that have been certified unfit for human habitation. What investigations are taking place to bring the practice under control and to ensure that paramilitary organisations are not, if I may use a bad pun, making a killing on such contracts?
The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has been pressed by tenant groups to update the heating in their dwellings. It is a long-established fact that solid fuel heating will benefit the dwellings and keep them in better repair. They have experienced condensation with gas and electric central heating. The executive is considering a policy of conversion in many areas, provided that there is a rent increase to take account of the additional expenditure. Is the Minister likely to impose financial restraints on the executive?
I must raise a delicate matter about the museums controlled by the Department of Education. I shall not name names, but I wish to deal with the problem of public expenditure. The Ulster Folk and Transport Museum at Holywood has had some problems in the past few months. The Exchequer and Audit Department of the Northern Ireland Office investigated expenditure at that museum.
One of the items that is being investigated is the purchase of furniture and fittings for the staff library complex. A number of questions were asked by the Exchequer and Audit Department which I wish briefly to put on record. I know that the Minister will not be able to give detailed answers when he replies, but I shall be pleased to receive a written reply from him.
Apparently, a staff library complex had to be furnished, and the original idea of the directors, or those in management at the museum, was that local firms could not supply the simple range of furniture for the complex. At least, that was their assumption. I am not sure whether they ever tried to ascertain whether that was the position.
The Exchequer and Audit Department asked them for the information on which it was originally decided that no local firm could supply a suitable range of furniture for the complex. It went on to ask whether a cost target for this expenditure was sought from the Department of Education and what that figure was when it was obtained. If a cost target had not been established, the Department wanted to know why it was not considered necessary to seek such guidance before incurring expenditure on selection. It is understood that two trips were made to London in connection with the furnishing of the complex. What was the purpose of the visits and when were they made? Which officers and other persons took part in the trips? The communication from the Department reads:
As previously requested"—
I assume that the Department had been seeking information which was not forthcoming—
please supply details of the expenditure incurred in respect of the visits to London, identifying separately staff travel and subsistence and any expenses or fees met in respect of or paid to other participants. What other expenses or fees were incurred in relation to the choice of furniture for the complex? If consultants were involved in this matter at any time, what were their terms of engagement and how were their rewards calculated? What circumstances altered to allow tenders ultimately to be invited from three local firms, how and by whom were the three local firms asked to tender and who chose them? Did all three respond and were the goods finally selected from the local firms, and what was the proportion of furniture in the complex that was eventually obtained by transfer from other and former offices?
I do not want to go into too much detail because I have some of the background facts. However, I wish to underline the questions put by the Exchequer and Audit Department. These matters are common knowledge to many of the museum's staff, and the Department's questions will tax the ingenuity of those who have to reply.
It was not necessary to go outside Northern Ireland for the furniture and fittings, yet money was spent to take people from the museum—I shall be interested to learn who went with them—to London and perhaps elsewhere to obtain details about furniture which eventually was not bought. There have been many complaints about the running of the museum and I ask the Minister to make some comments in reply in writing.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): We have had a wide-ranging


debate on a draft order that covers the majority of Government expenditure in the Province. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, talked about the level of Government expenditure in the Province. He referred to what he called "an alternative economic strategy" and called for higher expenditure, not only in Northern Ireland but, if I understand the alternative economic strategy to which he is referring, throughout the United Kingdom.
It is not appropriate for me to take much time on that aspect at the moment because there are many Northern Ireland matters that I wish to cover. However, there is a dilemma in the proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman. If the Government increase their expenditure, they must increase their borrowing. If they increase their borrowing, that affects interest rates, and nothing will more quickly give rise to higher unemployment than that. Nothing will encourage business men to seize profitable business opportunities more than to be able to borrow at lower cost and show a profit on the trading transactions that they would otherwise not have been able to afford.
It is valid to ask whether Northern Ireland is getting its share of expenditure. I assure the hon. Gentleman that Northern Ireland expenditure on comparable programmes has been about 35 per cent. more per capita than in Great Britain.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were prepared to put other factors ahead of jobs. As an example, he mentioned the fight against inflation. However, there is no alternative. There is no way in which jobs can be created without tackling the problem of inflation successfully, as the Government are doing now. Not only does inflation destroy savings, not only does it price a product out of the market so that it is not competitive, but there is a much more debilitating factor that tends to be forgotten, and that is that inflation makes every business cash hungry. More money is needed to finance the same volume of business. More money is tied up on stock and in work in progress.
Inflation means that resources are not directed into research, development, training and investment—all the things that are necessary for viable, successful, competitive industry. Those resources are drained off simply to keep pace with the effect of inflation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), who said that he hoped that I would not be lured by the proposals for reinflation. That would do serious damage. With inflation below 10 per cent., the Northern Ireland CBI confirmed in a recent survey that there was an improving trend in general business confidence.
I was asked why the small firms' engineering investment scheme had been ended. That was not a Northern Ireland scheme but one from the Department of Industry. So far as one can judge, Northern Ireland firms took it up pro rata to those of the Northern area of Great Britain, which is the nearest comparison currently available for the level of take-up in Northern Ireland.
The original scheme, costing £20 million, was increased by 50 per cent. to £30 million, and that is substantially more than the Government intended to spend on it. All those who made applications by 28 May will be covered.
The Department of Industry is now assessing the scheme's value. It is not sufficient to say that there is a big

demand for it; one must be sure that it is cost-effective in its operation. In the light of that, it will form its judgment for the future.
The ending of the scheme is not the unmitigated disaster for firms in Northern Ireland that hon. Members would lead us to believe. The scheme provided a third of the net cost—about 53·5 per cent. of the total sum. Capital grants of 30 per cent. were available to firms in Northern Ireland. However, there was the option of selective financial assistance instead of the 30 per cent. capital grant. 'That can go up to 40 or 50 per cent., depending on where the firm is on the project. The shortfall between the generous system of assistance available in Northern Ireland anyway and the special scheme is not as great as it may appear.
I doubt whether I shall be able to cover all of the many points made in the debate.

Mr. Soley: If the Minister is to make an assessment of the scheme, how long will it take? More importantly, will he undertake to make a statement to the House about it?

Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry that I gave way, because we are talking about a Department of Industry scheme, not a Northern Ireland Department scheme, and therefore I cannot give that assurance. The hon. Gentleman should address his appeal to Department of Industry Ministers.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister consult the Minister of State about the, peculiar difficulties of the youth opportunities programme and the youth training programme? I have studied a valuable research paper by Teresa Rees of University college, Cardiff. I have made investigations on the basis of that paper and there is a difficulty about staffing the two programmes and in finding suitable staff for their increased activities. Perhaps attention could be focused on that before we run into trouble.

Mr. Mitchell: Knowing the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about youth unemployment and the difficulties facing the young unemployed, I understand why he should ask that question. I shall consult the Minister of State.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the Comptroller and Auditor-General's criticism of the health and social services boards in his report of their accounts for 1980–81. The criticisms refer to detailed weaknesses in accounting procedures and controls. The Department has drawn them to the attention of the boards concerned, and my hon. Friend responsible for health and social services has spoken specifically to the boards' chairmen about it at one of his regular meetings. The boards have taken, or have agreed to take, corrective action and the Department's auditors will follow up the matter. Control of expenditure is important, and it is one of the reasons for today's debate.
The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to a matter of principle in relation to consultation with the district councils. He expressed anxiety about constitutional propriety and he discussed where an hon. Member might turn to find defence for a decision. When the Macrory committee considered the proposed new structure of local government in Northern Ireland based upon district councils and a single upper tier, it recommended—and it was subsequently accepted—that district councils should have a general consultative role. In subsequent legislation, district councils have been given a statutory right to be consulted about water and planning matters.
I have sought to fulfil and extend the original purposes of consultation with district councils. District councils are directly responsible for dustbins and so on. They have their representational function. They elect people to a representational housing council and so on. They also have a consultation role.
I believe that the consultation role should be made a reality. Let us be clear about what that means. If the district roads manager simply says to the council "This is what I propose to do in the coming year. That is my programme. Good day, gentlemen", I do not call that consultation. I believe that there is a genuine and important role for the district council. The roads manager should say "This is the sum of money that I have. What are your priorities?"
I come to the fundamental problem of who has the responsibility. I and my officials in the Department have responsibility for the decisions, but in taking those decisions we take account of the advice given by the district council in the course of consultation. Therefore, when the right hon. Member for Down, South says that he cannot refer his constituents to their representatives on the district council because the council is not responsible, I must tell him that of course he can do that. It is one of the many opportunities to influence the decision and to ensure that local opinion is taken into account, but the actual decision and the responsibility for that decision rest with the Department and the Minister. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to agree with me on that important principle.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North and others asked about housing. I was asked particularly whether the 5,250 houses planned for the Housing Executive was the programme limitation. The answer is that the capacity of the Housing Executive, moving on from the very low figures of not long ago, is 4,500 this year. Subject to problems of decanting and obtaining possession of sites, its capacity will be about 5,250 next year. This has been built up from the low figure of 2,459 in 1978–79, so I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North will at least take satisfaction from and perhaps even offer some small congratulation to the Government on having achieved better results in Northern Ireland housing than were achieved at the end of the Labour Government's period of office.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Shelter's estimate that 10,000 new houses were needed in Northern Ireland. I hope that he does not take the view—I am sure that Northern Ireland Members do not—that public sector housing is the only important sector and provides the only contribution to solving the housing problems of Northern Ireland. If one takes the private sector as well, the co-ownership movement will provide more than 1,000 houses this year, giving a major boost for private sector housing demand. The sum of £6 million was originally allocated to that movement, but I have already had to increase the figure to £7 million for the current year. I am keeping the matter under review in order to do my best to ensure that there is no check on its ability to meet demand.
In addition, all the other housing associations with their own specialist areas are undertaking both new build and rehabilitation. The Housing Executive also has some 600 new starts on rehabilitation this year.
When all those elements are taken into consideration, the provision comes rather closer to the figure that Shelter and others believed should be provided in the Province.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised, not for the first time, the problems of rural cottages. I am grateful for his tribute to the work of the Housing Executive and shall pass it on to the chairman. The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance about the future. The Housing Executive expects to deal with 718 cottages this year, 140 of them through full rehabilitation and 578 with packaging which allows some immediate improvement to be made without blocking further improvements later. It is important to get a good mix of private sector and public sector housing in Northern Ireland. It is for that reason that I am doing all that I can to encourage the co-ownership movement.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North also asked about the £50 million from the EEC this spring. He said that he did not see that come through as additional money for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. That was actually taken into account in the original allocation of funds to the Housing Executive. If we had not known that we were to get that money, we should not have been in a position to sustain a programme of the size that we did. I assure the hon. Member that the £16 million, if we get it, will be in addition to what the United Kingdom Treasury had budgeted for and had reason to expect. If it comes, as an addition to this country from the EEC, it will be an addition going to the Housing Executive.
I was asked about rents and the rumour that rents were to be evened up. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr Robinson) asked whether it was a disguised increase. The executive is concerned because the current flat-rate, Province-wide system of rents is not fair as between one property and another. It is proposing a rents points system. That proposition would result in the same overall total rent roll as now. However, within that total, some would be less and some would be more. It would not be a disguised increase in the total rent roll which comes from the Housing Executive. That proposal is out for consultation, and I am sure that those hon. Members who expressed an interest in the matter during the debate will make their views known direct to the chairman of the Housing Executive.
I was asked about the wall in Cluan Place. If my recollection serves me right—I say that, because I do not have the correspondence with me—I referred in my letter to 3½ metres, and subsequently the matter of 4½ metres was raised. We are in some difficulty here. The foundations will not take 4½ metres in solid brick. However, we believe that it is possible and reasonable to build 3½ metres now, and if there is then a further demand no doubt we can put shielding above it, which will not weigh on the foundations to the same extent.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned protection money. We are very worried about what he said. I hope that he will send me information, because I cannot operate on the basis of rumour. If he will give me hard facts to work on, I shall be willing to make further inquiries.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) raised the matter of the Strabane bypass. Discussions and consultations are now taking place on the line of route, and we hope to publish proposals later this year.
I was asked about young farmers clubs and the rating law, which has many mysteries. It is true that young farmers clubs in Northern Ireland are denied the Great Britain derating. I say that because of the peculiarities of the charitable law in Northern Ireland, which is different


from that in Great Britain. I understand that the main Estimates now before the House include grant provision of £37,000 for young farmers clubs in relation to education activities. No similar grants are made in Great Britain. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that that is at least some compensation for the peculiarities of the charity and rating system.
On the question of the Government applying to the EEC for less-favoured areas in Northern Ireland to be extended, the answer is "Yes". However, I cannot give a precise date, but we hope that it will be in the near future. There is no commitment to funding any additional grants yet. These grants are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in London.
I have been asked about health and hospitals. The hon. Members for Antrim, North and Belfast, East asked about the attendance allowance. In Northern Ireland it is 10·5 persons per 1,000, whereas in Great Britain it is 5·4, so that we have nearly double the rate in Northern Ireland. That should reassure the hon. Gentleman.
I have been asked about the Antrim hospital and about several other matters which I shall not have time to deal with today. I assure the hon. Members concerned that I shall go through the Official Report very carefully to note all the points that they have raised and will write to them, or my hon. Friends in the Departments concerned will write to them about them.

It being Four o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Agricultural Marketing)

4 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I beg to move,
That the draft Agricultural Marketing (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
It appears to be a somewhat lengthy order, but it is comparatively straightforward. It seeks to repeal the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 and to provide in its place a revised statutory basis for agricultural marketing boards in Northern Ireland.
The order is necessary to bring the Pigs Marketing Board into a form which is acceptable under European Community law and to put the Milk Marketing Board on a similar basis to that of other milk marketing boards in the United Kingdom. It is also necessary to make provision for the disposal of any surplus assets of the Seed Potato Marketing Board, which has announced its intention to wind up its operations.
The Pigs, Milk and Seed Potato Marketing Boards were set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1933 and continued under the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, which superseded the earlier legislation. Over the years those boards have achieved their aim of providing orderly marketing of their respective regulated products.
In Great Britain the equivalent legislation is the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958, under which the various milk marketing boards and the Potato Marketing Board are constituted. The Act also provides for the British Wool Marketing Board, which operates throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
Since the United Kingdom joined the European Community in 1973, we have been aware that questions could be raised about certain aspects of statutory marketing board operations. That presented problems for the three Northern Ireland marketing boards.
The United Kingdom was able to establish that the United Kingdom milk market had certain characteristics which distinguished it fundamentally from other member States. Therefore, it was possible to obtain an amendment to the Communities milk regime permitting, with a few minor exceptions, the continued operation of the milk marketing boards along traditional lines which provided boards with monopoly purchasing powers for milk.
Compared to the 1958 Act applying in Great Britain, the Northern Ireland Act of 1964 provided for greater Government involvement in the establishment and control of marketing boards. Accordingly, in the order provision is made for the Northern Ireland Milk Marketing Board to be reconstituted on a basis more akin to the 1958 Act. Part II of the order closely follows the provisions and procedures of the 1958 Act.
With those changes to bring the Northern Ireland Milk Marketing Board into line with the other four United Kingdom boards, the Department of Agriculture's responsibilities will be reduced in such areas as the approval of staffing levels and staff and members' remunerations, while producer involvement with, and control over, their board will be increased. That alignment


should further protect the Northern Ireland Milk Marketing Board against possible future European Commission criticism.
As hon. Members may know, the Northern Ireland Pigs Marketing Board became the subject of an action in the European Court, which ruled that it was not permissible for a member State to retain legislation compelling producers to sell their produce through a marketing board. Following that ruling, discussions with the European Commission indicated that the Pigs Marketing Board could continue in operation only if it gave up its compulsory powers of purchase. Accordingly, under part III, provision is made for the Pigs Marketing Board to be reconstituted without compulsory powers of purchase. In future, producers will be free to enter into contracts to sell to the board only if they wish to do so. This part also makes the Pigs Marketing Board accountable to those producers who on a regular basis sell pigs to the board under such contracts.
I shall deal now with the provisions in the draft order relating to the Seed Potato Marketing Board, which was set up in 1961. The board, from the outset, experienced difficulty in enforcing its monopoly purchasing position. The main reason was that it did not have the power to control producers who exported potatoes on their own account. Even before the end of the United Kingdom transitional period of entry to the European Community, exports accounted for a sizeable proportion of the annual crop. The proportion of the total crop which the board attracted continued to fall, until in 1981 its share represented only 13 per cent. At this level of producer support the board's continued existence under the agricultural legislation was difficult to sustain.
The board therefore decided to wind up as soon as it fulfilled its commitments to producers for the 1981 crop. Legal opinion suggests that in the execution of the winding up procedure under the provisions of the 1964 Act which assume an asset deficit the liquidator would have difficulty in disposing of any surplus assets which might arise. There is, it seems, a possibility that the potato board could have surplus assets after it has met all its liabilities and the cost of winding up.
Article 43 and schedule 7 therefore make amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 in relation to the winding up of the Seed Potato Marketing Board to provide for the disposal of surplus assets. These amendments will enable any surplus assets of the board to be transferred to the Department of Agriculture for distribution for the general benefit of the seed potato industry. Among the potential claimants for any such assets as may remain would be any general promotional and development body serving the industry or a widely based producer co-operative marketing seed potatoes on behalf of its members.
I have outlined the main reasons for this order and the overall objective of the major parts II and III. Rather than go through the order article by article, I should like to draw attention to a number of significant points.
First, while part II has been drafted primarily to secure the continuation of the Milk Marketing Board on classical marketing board lines, it will, at the same time, facilitate the establishment of new marketing boards should this become necessary in the future. However, because of the

application of European Community law, the opportunities for this will be extremely limited and none is envisaged at present. The retention of this possibility, however, keeps the Northern Ireland legislation on a similar basis to that applying in Great Britain.
Secondly, unlike the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958, on which part II of the order is based, part II makes no provisions for the formation and role of a consumer committee to report on the effects of any scheme on consumer interests. It is intended that this role will be undertaken by an amalgamated consumer protection body looking after a wide range of consumer interests in Northern Ireland. This will avoid unnecessary proliferation of such bodies without diminishing consumer protection in any way. Legislation to provide for this is presently in the course of preparation by the Department of Commerce.
While part III has been drafted primarily to accommodate the Pigs Marketing Board to operate on a voluntary basis, the order has been worded to enable the Milk Marketing Board or any other boards constituted under part II to be reconstituted under part III should this become necessary or desirable. However, the order does not provide for the establishment of marketing boards de novo under part III. If producers wish to set up other voluntary marketing organisations, sufficient opportunities already exist under both companies and industrial and provident societies legislation.
I should like to refer to schedule 3, which applies to all boards constituted under the provisions of parts II and III. This requires a board to show an annual statement as to the emoluments of members and employees of the board following the principle enshrined in companies legislation in Great Britain. The purpose of this statement is to give producers insight into costs of staff and members which are significant factors in the overall costs of a board's administration. This is in keeping with the objective of making agricultural marketing boards more accountable to producers. Lastly, unlike the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958, schedule 2(7) and schedule 6(6) to the order make provisions for boards, whether constituted under part II or part III, to consult producers with a view to winding up and the transfer or distribution of assets. Such transfer could, among other possibilities, include a transfer to some other producer organisation such as an agricultural co-operative.
These specific points will, I hope, illustrate the flexibility which the order justifiably provides to enable agricultural marketing boards in Northern Ireland to adapt to meet the changed circumstance of farming in the 1980s. I am confident that the order will provide a sound legal framework for the future operation of marketing boards in the Province. There has been full consultation with interested bodies. I understand that the three boards affected and the Ulster Farmers Union have welcomed the proposals. I have no hesitation in commending the order to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: I shall not delay the House for more than a few minutes. I want only to say that the Opposition realise that this is largely a tidying-up operation recognising the force of EEC regulations. However, we are far from happy about assuming automatically that we must accept EEC regulations on such matters as the Pigs Marketing Board,


given that 13 per cent. of jobs in Northern Ireland are provided by agriculture. Our main priority must be to give positive help to agriculture. It is clear that the draft order does nothing to inhibit that, and I recognise the force of the Minister's argument.
I also noted from the speech of the Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) a moment ago that the less-favoured areas issue will be looked at in the near future. I welcome that, because again a great deal of Northern Ireland's agricultural areas could benefit from being so defined. If we are to have EEC regulations affecting us, let us have the benefits as well as the disadvantages.
That is the main point that the Opposition wish to make. Many small farmers in Northern Ireland depend upon pigs and poultry, and I note with some concern that the pig breeding herd has dropped from 112,000 in 1973 to 65,000 in 1981. That is a drop of about 40 per cent., and that must be a cause for serious concern. Presumably it is linked to the EEC policy on feedstuffs and their prices. If we are to take EEC regulations more or less automatically, we should press hard to make sure that we get the less-favoured area treatment benefits for Northern Ireland as well as just taking orders of this type.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to back up what the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) has just said. I am happy to say that we have had the first assurance from the Government about less-favoured areas treatment and that we are now to see an application made to that effect. I hope that it will be made as quickly as possible.
This draft legislation shows the long arm of Europe streching into the House and directing our proceedings. I am utterly opposed to that. I do not believe that the House should make its regulations for Northern Ireland agriculture because of some regulations made by a bureaucratic Commission in Brussels. That has to be opposed. I have opposed it in the European Assembly, and I shall continue to oppose it here and elsewhere.
An attempt was made by Europe to destroy the milk marketing boards of the United Kingdom. It was because of the effective stand by, and, even more, the referendum among, the farming community that we were able to override the directive that came from outside this jurisdiction and impinged on the sovereignty of the House.
Now we can see the long arm of Europe dictating what should happen in Northern Ireland. However, I do not think that many tears will be shed in Northern Ireland about the disappearance of the Seed Potato Marketing Board. The board did not have overall control, its powers were limited, and there was always opposition to the way in which it proceeded. However, we in the United Kingdom should retain the right to set up such boards if they are seen to be for the benefit of agriculture.
Agriculture in Northern Ireland is the biggest employer. It is our basic industry. It is vital to the community. It will be a tragedy if some outside body can say "You will not do this", even though the people in the area, and even Ministers, feel that it is the proper course to adopt. I trust that the Minister will resist any pressures that may be put upon him not to take into account the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland and the interests of the agriculture community.
With those few remarks, I draw my comments to a conclusion. I hope that the Minister will take that matter on board and realise that there is strong condemnation of the idea that the long arm of Europe should dictate how agricultural products are marketed in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I hope that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), in his attempt to be in several places at the same time, has managed to make those points in the European parliamentary Assembly. They may be relevant, but I do not propose to follow them at length.
I contribute to the debate for two reasons. It reminds me that a few years ago the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised in Question Time the problem of smuggling. He was extremely worried about what he imagined was a relatively new phenomenon. I followed him to say that smuggling of livestock in Northern Ireland might be following well-trodden paths. I am not sure in which direction those paths lead at present. Will the Minister comment on that and, the effect of smuggling on the marketing boards? I raise the matter because a few weeks ago, as a member of the Council of Europe agricultural committee, I discussed the present plight of agriculture in Southern Ireland. It is so serious that the Council of Europe is embarking upon a study, because of the important implications it has if there is to be social and economic justice in Europe.
The majority of the holdings in Southern Ireland are less than 100 acres, and statistically it seems that no one can operate an average quality holding of less than 100 acres and make a livelihood, such is the difference that has developed instead of the buoyancy and prosperity that were purported to have followed entry to the Community. Such is the plight of the majority of farmers in Southern Ireland that it seems to me that they will look intently to see whether there is a better prospect of reward in the North. If that position continues the marketing boards, which will continue to exist, could face difficulties.
The vast majority of holdings in Southern Ireland appear to be less than 100 acres, and of those one-third are less than 50 acres. Many of them are not holdings on the good quality land that would make 50 acres a profitable proposition. The position may be somewhat different in the North where some of the more aggressive planters in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries may have been able to carve out larger shares of land than those in the South. If there is any similarity in farm structure in the North to the major problems of the South, whether the European Community likes it or not, the Government may have to do far more than dismantle the seed potato marketing arrangements. They will have to promote more positively and generously a sensible agricultural structure, even at the cost of the high public expenditure that they deplore. To return to my first point, if they do they might find that smuggling becomes even more attractive than it was before.

Mr. William Ross: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), because it gives me the opportunity to tell him that the range of farm sizes in Northern Ireland must be similar to that in the other part of the island. They all spring from


the same roots. The farms in Northern Ireland are accumulations of smaller units created under the old landlord system.
As the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) said, the order is a sweeping-up exercise to get rid of the debris created by our entry to the EEC. It makes various changes to bring the Northern Ireland marketing boards in line with EEC rules on competition and trade.
Part II replaces the Agricultural Marketing Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. I was curious because it seemed that the order and the 1958 Act to which the Minister referred were much the same, but the Minister cleared up that matter when he said that there was greater control in Northern Ireland under the 1964 Act than there was in Britain under the 1958 Act. Perhaps he will explain to me, when he replies to the debate or in writing, the differences between the Acts.
As long as the producers support the milk marketing board the proposed changes will not alter the system of milk marketing in Northern Ireland, any more than they will in Britain. Article 25 of the order empowers the board to negotiate with other persons, but is that all that it does? Does it not also allow milk roundsmen to sell goods other than milk and milk products? I have been informed that it does give them that power and I should be glad if the Minister would confirm that that is so.
The new boards outlined in part II are the sort of co-operative ventures that are so common on the Continent and result from the changes that have been made to the pigs marketing board following the Redmond case. In that case, the individual concerned was caught by the police while transporting his pigs across the border. He was told that that was illegal and was taken to court. He contended that under EEC rules his action was not illegal and eventually the EEC was triumphant and the powers of the marketing board were quietly chopped.
It has taken since 1978 for the case to work through into legislation. Another case in England resulted in changes having to be made to the hops marketing board to bring it into line with EEC rules. Apparently, competition has greatly increased, to the detriment of English hop growers. We are further from the Continent, but I wonder whether similar problems will follow this legislation.
All those changes spring from our entry into the EEC. They are all a direct result of the changes in the marketing structure of our agricultural produce that the EEC has demanded. It is the end of a system which, in some commodities, served the farmers quite well—not as well as members of the boards would have us believe, but not as ill as the enemies of the boards would have us believe either, because they succeeded in their objectives to some extent. Milk and pigs are the two outstanding boards in the United Kingdom and there is the hops board in Kent, but others have been set up. The Grass Seeds Marketing Board did not last long.
I was interested in what the Minister said about assets when the Seed Potato Marketing Board ceases operation. That money should go to the Seed Potato producers who sold their crops through the board. I am aware of the severe difficulties that surrounded that board. I was a grass seed grower and I supported the relevant board for that commodity. I am sorry now to see the seed potato board vanish. Given the restrictions under which it had to operate, its demise could have been foreseen a long time

ago, not only because of the legal framework in which it operated, but because of the sheer impossibility of forecasting what the potato crop would be at any time.
It is noteworthy that the boards that have succeeded, such as the Milk Marketing Board and the Pigs Marketing Board, covered products that could be used in a variety of ways and could be stored and sold as and when the market was prepared to bear extra production or input. However, that cannot be done with potatoes. People eat only so many potatoes. They cannot be stored well. We cannot make them all into crisps. An increase in yield of 1 tonne or 2 tonnes per acre can make an enormous difference to the success of one's marketing arrangements. The same is true of grass seeds and their availability on the world market.
Regardless of how we try to smooth out the price cycle in agricultural produce and regardless of how we try to control the price and production, which we are still trying to do, we will never wholly succeed. That has been the basic problem of agricultural production down the years. One cannot be certain how much food one will have when the harvest is over. In a country such as this where we must import that food, we have always aimed at the maximum that can be produced economically. We have tried to deal with that through boards.
We inhibited the play of market forces to some extent, but not completely. It was the inter-play of market forces that destroyed the boards that failed. The success of those that succeeded depended on certain characteristics in the product rather than on the board that handled the product.
From now on co-operatives will be the name of the game. I hope that they will be successful. I hope that they can change the attitude of the average British farmer to co-ops and that they can make the British farmer more community-minded in the sense that he is lookng after the farming community. But I doubt it. I believe that farmers will still try to get the maximum each year, whatever their product may be, to the long-term disadvantage of the industry. No one regrets that more than me. I can see the advantages of a co-operative system supported by the fanning community, which works to the general good in many areas. I hope that anything that can be done in that area will be done. I believe that the Minister will do it, but I fear that the future will be more uncertain. Farming income will be more uncertain than before we entered the EEC.
It was popular to criticise Government control but at least at the beginning of the year we had some idea of what we would have. Now we are out in the cold, hard world again. The farmers in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom have found it a chastening experience.

Mr. Adam Butler: I welcome the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) to our debate and apologise to him for the fact that I shall not remain to hear his Adjournment debate. I shall not follow the tortuous path down which he led us to explore the relationship between agriculture in the Republic of Ireland and that in Northern Ireland. However, I confirm that the size of agricultural holdings in Northern Ireland is about the same as that in the Republic—21·5 hectares in the North and 22·5 in the South. I have not seen any farms in the South. There are some real differences because more corn is grown there. I was impressed by the intensity of agriculture in Northern Ireland and the good use that is made of limited acreage by supplementing the land available with modern farm


buildings and farming techniques. I also acknowledge, as I have frequently, the benefits that would accrue to Northern Ireland agriculture if there was an extension of the less-favoured areas and if the same subsidies and grants were to apply to the extended areas.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) greets my hon. Friend's statement about the less-favoured areas as something new, but he cannot have heard me say the same thing or have read written answers on the subject. The Government intend to apply to Brussels for an extension of less-favoured areas, but we must co-ordinate the regions of the United Kingdom in so doing. But equally there is no commitment to extra cash. The extension alone, although it will give hope, is not sufficient for Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked about the differences in the 1958 Act. He asked me to write to him. If he reads my speech he will find that I dealt with three out of the four principal differences. If there are others, I shall write to him. The fourth difference is the one that he pinpointed, and I did not refer to it because of the shortage of time. The Act allows the Milk Marketing Board to sell other products or, as the order describes it, products that may conveniently be so sold. That is current practice in many dairies. It helps to reduce costs and to maintain the viability of doorstep deliveries which, all other matters being equal, we wish to continue. We believe that the order should be used to put the board on an equal footing with other independent undertakings. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is the right thing to do.
Some hon. Members expressed agony about the requirements of the European Commission and the interference with our traditional marketing boards and the benefit that they have given to consumers. The only requirement that arises out of Community legislation is the removal of compulsion. The test should be the voluntary support of producers, which should depend upon the service provided to those producers. That principle is not bad and is enshrined in the special arrangements made for the Milk Marketing Board and for producer polls. In the first poll in 1978, 99·1 per cent. of milk producers voted in favour of the continuance of the board. That is identical to an expression of voluntary support and meets the criteria that both I and the Community wish to have.
About 90 per cent. of producers are making use of the Pigs Marketing Board's services. If it continues to render

a good service to them—it will be more accountable to them in the future—there is no reason why the board should not continue to provide the excellent service that it has offered in the past.
In contrast, the Seed Potato Marketing Board has lost producers' support, which has fallen to as low as 13 per cent. That seems to be a good reason why it should not continue in its present form. However, it can continue as explained in the order. Under a slightly exceptional arrangement it may, if it wishes, join the other co-operatives. As the hon. Member for Londonderry said, co-operatives should be the name of the game. Co-operatives are developing throughout the United Kingdom. A new seed potato marketing co-operative is developing and we wish it well. Any organisation so formed will have a greater chance of success if it originates from the wishes of the producers rather than by Government compulsion.
The hon. Member for Londonderry mentioned a surplus which might arise from the winding-up of the Seed Potato Marketing Board. He thought that any moneys available should be distributed to producers. There is a difficulty because the number of producers in recent times has been limited whereas there were many more in the past. It is suggested that the moneys should be used for the general benefit of the industry. This might be done, for example, through supporting co-operative marketing arrangements.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister know how much money will be involved?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise figure. I shall be happy to try to give him an indication in writing. I may have to say, however, that it is impossible to do so at this stage. It is thought that there will be a surplus rather than a deficit. Legislative provision has to be made for that because such provision was apparently previously lacking.
I am glad that we have had this short debate. Agricultural marketing is an important activity. Those who have contributed to the debate have shown their personal interest. I hope that for that reason they will give the draft order a fair wind.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Agricultural Marketing (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

CIVIL AVIATION

That the draft Aviation Security Fund (Amendment) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With the leave of the House, I shall put the two motions on international immunities and privileges together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the draft United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brooke.]
That the draft Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Question agreed to.

European Community Documents

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two motions on group accounts and bank accounts in the name of the Prime Minister.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73B (Standing Committees on European Community Documents.)

GROUP ACCOUNTS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 1129/76 and of the Explanatory memoranda dated 1st June 1976, 6th February 1979, 12th December 1979 and 16th March 1982, and supports the Government's intention to seek to negotiate a Directive which reflects to the fullest possible extent United Kingdom experience and practice in accounting for groups.

BANK ACCOUNTS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5692/81, draft Directive concerning the annual accounts of banks and other financial institutions, and of the Explanatory memoranda dated 14th May 1981, and supports the Government's intention in the light of any amendments which might be made to the proposals to negotiate a Directive providing for appropriate disclosure of information by banks and other financial institutions.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Question agreed to.

AVIATION SECURITY BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Aviation Security Bill [Lords] notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mrs. S. Moody

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Peter Hardy: The House has many functions. It forms a major part of the legislature, it provides the authority for taxation, and it is the place in which the Government can face criticism and seek to justify themselves, but it has another function as well. It provides a Member with an opportunity to pursue a case where a constituent—or a community within his constituency—faces threats to his liberty and condition or the threat or reality of an injustice.
It is such a case that concludes our week's business. I raise the case of Mrs. Moody. She lives in Rawmarsh in my constituency. She occupied a responsible position with the National Coal Board at Wath main colliery when she was widowed at an early age. She is only 30 years old now. At that point she decided to embark upon a new career. Accordingly, she attended the Sheffield School of Nursing where she qualified as a State enrolled nurse in December 1980.
Prior to that, being a lady of initiative, Mrs. Moody had secured a post conditional upon her completing her course. She expected to start work immediately at the Mexborough Montagu hospital. She was prepared, and had taken every step necessary, to start work immediately. Unfortunately, she could not do so. The problem is that Mrs. Moody was unemployed for several months, through no fault of her own. During the months of unemployment she pursued the problem, she contacted the General Nursing Council and the health authority frequently. Indeed, she incurred approximately £5 expenditure in pursuing the matter. However, she did not receive her State enrolled nurse's number and badge and therefore could not start work.
I did not find out about the case until Mrs. Moody consulted me about a small problem of unemployment benefit and national insurance, which I was able to resolve immediately. I must pay tribute to the officers in our local Department of Health and Social Security and Employment offices, who acted with their normal courtesy and expedition. However, as far as her enrolment number was concerned, my experience was very different. I met with delay, prevarication and deceit. I was given cause to share Mrs. Moody's anger at some of the statements made in the case. Without burdening the House unduly, I propose to refer to some of the many letters that I had to write and some of those that I had hoped never to receive as a public representative.
I wrote to the then Minister of State on 1 March 1981 to complain that my constituent's experience had been grossly unsatisfactory and to suggest that she should be reimbursed in the sum of £645. I do not complain about the Minister's reply. He is in the hands of his advisers and his first response seemed to me to be a reflection of their advice. He referred to the changes in the procedures that had recently been introduced by the General Nursing Council, and that reflected the reply that the General Nursing Council sent to me.
I was not entirely happy and I asked the Minister to look at the matter further. I wrote to him in April, he looked at the matter in considerable detail and wrote me a letter dated 31 July. That reply was interesting, because he pointed out that the Department could not pay the


compensation that I felt Mrs. Moody should receive and that either the General Nursing Council or the health authority, as the responsible bodies, could make an ex gratia payment. Quite properly, the Minister did not enter into any argument as to which body should take that action.
I then wrote to the regional health authority and to the General Nursing Council on 24 August. I suggested that one of them should pay the compensation to Mrs. Moody. She was in need of that compensation. She was a nurse who had been unemployed for three months. I suggested that they should pay the difference between the unemployment benefit and her net salary, with £5 to meet the cost of the many attempts that she had made to obtain information and £60 in regard to tax and capital loss.
The area administrator for the health authority looked into the matter. I am satisfied that the information that I have received from that authority has been correct throughout the whole of this sorry tale. It presented the facts and said that it acted swiftly and properly when Mrs. Moody applied for enrolment on 11 December 1980 when she had completed the course. It provided the necessary information to the General Nursing Council to support that application without delay.
On 26 October 1981 the General Nursing Council sent me a reply which leaves much to be desired. I believe that hon. Members are entitled to receive accurate information from bodies, whether public or otherwise. The General Nursing Council said:
Unfortunately her School of Nursing sent in their first record of completion of training before training had actually been completed and it was (quite rightly) rejected by the Council's computer system.
It was assumed that there was some conversation. So a clear implication that the school of nursing was at fault was made. The letter states that the council could not accept that it was its responsibility that Mrs. Moody was placed at great disadvantage.
I wrote again to the area health authority to suggest that it should pay the compensation since it seemed that the school of nursing was at fault. The health authority took the matter seriously. It made it clear that the information which the General Nursing Council gave me in its letter of 26 October 1981, and therefore the information presented to the Minister, was less than accurate.
I received a disturbing reply from the health authority. Part of the letter read:
Inquiries have been made of the General Nursing Council and they admit that certain information given in Mr. Pyne's letter to you dated 26 October is incorrect. For our part, we can confirm that the complete necessary training record of Mrs. Moody was forwarded by our School of Nursing to the General Nursing Council immediately following completion of training. Indeed, we have received from the General Nursing Council a photostat copy of that record dated 11th December 1980.
Mr. Pyne—the officer of the General Nursing Council involved in the correspondence—
states that 'unfortunately the School of Nursing sent in their first record of completion of training before training had actually been completed …' He has now admitted to … our Area Nursing Officer that this statement is incorrect. This record was dated 11th December, i.e. the date that she completed training and not before and, therefore, there was no reason why the computer should reject the record. Moreover, the General Nursing Council accept that Mrs. Moody paid her fee for enrolment on 11th December and it was cleared by them on 15th December 1980. We therefore have no reason to retract the statement given in my original letter.
I accept that unreservedly.
I wrote back to the General Nursing Council to ask it to explain. I received a disgraceful and astonishing reply in a letter dated 27 January and I had to chase the council for the letter. It had informed the area health authority that it would contact Mrs. Moody and me, but it failed to do that. In the letter the council seems to be retreating from the admission that it had made to the area health authority. It said that it was
not convinced that Mrs. Moody was actively seeking nursing employment.
Mr. Pyne added:
Indeed I am led to believe that she very quickly obtained employment outside nursing.
The burden of Mrs. Moody's case is that she was unemployed for months and yet the council casts doubt on that and suggests that she acted improperly.
If Mrs. Moody had a lot of money I should have advised her to sue that body for libel. Those people were seeking to transfer the blame and casting on my constituent aspersions that were plainly unjustified.
I sent a copy of that letter to Mrs. Moody. As a sensible South Yorkshire woman, she was not prepared to accept that kind of statement from bureaucrats. She sent a very strong letter. I only wish that it could be read out to the House by a South Yorkshire woman who feels very indignant about such an injustice. Mrs. Moody made the point that she had secured her job at Montagu hospital in September 1980, conditional upon passing and being enrolled. She had not wasted time. She had secured a job and was desperately eager to start it. The very people who prevented her from doing so were those who suggested that somehow she was acting deceitfully. There has certainly been deceit in this case, but it has not come from Mrs. Moody, and I share her concern.
Having been informed of Mrs. Moody's very strong views, in which she criticised bureaucracy and suggested that there might be more chiefs than Indians in some quarters, I wrote again to the General Nursing Council on 8 February. I said that
your letter can only be described as quite disgraceful …
Your suggestion is really quite indefensible and I regard it as an outrageous attempt to evade responsibility …
I believe that the Council should reimburse Mrs. Moody for the financial loss which is involved. May I request that this be paid without further delay and certainly without further prevarication.
I concluded my letter with the following words:
I await your reply which I trust will contain no further cause for the anger and resentment felt by Mrs. Moody and her Member which previous correspondence has certainly justified. An injustice has occurred and I believe that it should now be rectified by the payment of the appropriate compensation plus interest and the offer of a full apology both in respect of the error and the procrastination.
The result was that I received a solicitor's letter. I do not know whether the General Nursing Council felt that a Member of Parliament would quake in his shoes at the prospect of such a letter, but I certainly did not. Although I do not have a particularly and comprehensively good opinion of the legal profession as a whole, one member of it has now sunk very low in my estimation. A Mr. G. V. Bull of Messrs. Wright and Bull—strangely enough, of 23 Portland Place, London W1, the same address as the General Nursing Council—wrote to me in his capacity as the council's solicitor in reply to my letter to Mr. Pyne, the registrar. Mr. Bull said:
The facts of this matter are simple.
They are indeed simple, but the General Nursing Council has made them complicated. He continued:


Your constituent became enrolled on 12 December 1980 but was unfortunately not sent a Certificate of Enrolment until 17 March 1981 in the circumstances already described in your correspondence with the Council, in which it was made clear that the Council cannot issue a Certificate of Enrolment until they have received a record of completion of training from the School of Nursing.
Yet the council admits to having received that submission and that it was sent on the date when the period of qualification was completed. Mr. Bull continued:
The council regret very much the delay suffered by your constituent and I am asked to repeat, most sincerely, the apologies Mr. Pyne has already given.
I am not sure whether they were apologies for the procrastination or for the incompetence. Mr. Bull continued:
I have advised the Council that it would not be appropriate for them to meet the demand for compensation which you have made on your constituent's behalf.
It is, of course, open to you and to her to take any action you or she thinks fit.
Only a few people qualify for legal aid, and Mrs. Moody is not one of them. Nor is she very well off. I told her that I thought that she had a very good case but that I was not a lawyer and therefore could not give absolutely reliable advice. Nevertheless, I thought that she could win a case in court. Like many millions of people in this country, however, Mrs. Moody shrinks from that course of action, as the only people guaranteed to benefit from litigation are the lawyers.
I offered to raise the matter in the House, because I felt that a body should not get away with an injustice to an individual who had done nothing wrong, or get away with imputations of the sort that the General Nursing Council made, or get away scot-free with what was plainly disgraceful incompetence. I passed the matter to the Health Service Commissioner. That seemed to me a sensible arrangement, but unfortunately his terms of reference do not allow him to investigate this case. Perhaps the Minister will consider amending those terms of reference so that any organisation which impinges on the National Health Service can be considered by the Health Service Commissioner.
I met Mrs. Moody and told her that I understood her reluctance to enter into litigation and expressed the hope that one day we should have a society where people could more readily pursue the course of justice without Members of Parliament having to raise cases in the House—in this case, much later on a Friday than we normally sit. I agreed to raise the matter in the House.
Earlier today, we discussed the National Health Service dispute, and I shall not trespass on that subject, but whatever our conflicting views the Minister will accept that nurses are not particularly well rewarded. They are certainly esteemed—unless, of course, they become rebellious—but they are not well rewarded. I see no reason why a nurse in my constituency should forfeit £700 because of public—or semi-public—incompetence.
Today, Mrs. Moody is employed at the Rotherham district general hospital. She is one of a team led by Dr. Bardhan, who has been at the forefront of the clinical development of fibre optics. Mrs. Moody is a pleasant woman with a happy manner. She is most suitably employed, because she can encourage people who need cheering when they visit the day clinic for what can be a stressful experience. She will save many of my

constituents from stress and anxiety. I only hope that the community can provide some recognition for her anxiety and stress and the grossly unsatisfactory treatment she has received from bodies which should know better. I hope that, somehow or other, the body concerned can be prevailed on to treat my constituent decently. At any rate, Mrs. Moody now has the satisfaction of knowing that her case has been aired in Parliament. Further, I hope that people in the public sector or the private sector who feel that they can deceive Members of Parliament and seek to frighten them from pursuing cases involving their constituents' welfare will be discouraged by this debate.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): I apologise for the absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, who has direct responsibility for this subject, but he had a prior commitment, and I have offered to stand in his place.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) for raising the problems that his constituent, Mrs. Moody, had in obtaining her enrolment certificate from the General Nursing Council. I was, nevertheless, very sorry to learn of the difficulties that Mrs. Moody had experienced and of the fact that this had consequently delayed her in taking up her position as a State enrolled nurse at Montagu Hospital, Mexborough. I always regard it as being of the utmost importance that this House pays cognisance to the plight of individuals whose rights are seemingly hampered by problems of administration. The hon. Gentleman put his case forcibly on behalf of his constituent. Although what I and my hon. Friends can do is very limited in such cases, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's words will be heeded by those to whom they are directed.
The House will realise that the General Nursing Council is a statutory body which is responsible for the regulation of the nursing profession in England and Wales and is, therefore, responsible for the matters that we are debating. I rely on the council officers for the information which has been supplied for use in this debate. They have been most helpful to my Department, and I regret that the hon. Gentleman should find it necessary to use terms such as "prevarication" and "deceit" about them. However, he has put his case and produced the evidence in support of it.
I begin by examining the general provisions which govern the inclusion of any nurse on the roll controlled by the General Nursing Council. The council has carried out that statutory obligation since 1919, and it should be remembered that it has to cope with processing many tens of thousands of applications each year.
To be eligible for acceptance for inclusion on the roll, each pupil nurse must have passed the appropriate written assessment, together with three hospital-conducted practical tests to assess practical nursing competence. The pupil nurse must also have completed the statutory 24-month training period. Finally, he or she must have paid the statutory enrolment fee. Any nurse who applies for enrolment and who fails to satisfy any one of these conditions may not be included by the General Nursing Council on the roll.
If all the conditions are met, then the effective date of enrolment is either the date on which the enrolment fee was paid, or the day after the date of either completion of the statutory training or the date of success in the last qualifying examination, whichever is the later.
In Mrs. Moody's case, her effective date of enrolment was determined by the date of completion of her statutory training, which was on 11 December 1980. Her effective date of enrolment was, therefore, 12 December 1980.
It is, of course, of concern that it should take the General Nursing Council over 12 weeks to notify an applicant of her acceptance on to the roll. As we know, the facts of Mrs. Moody's application were that her application for enrolment was made on 11 December 1980 and notification was not issued to her in writing until 17 March 1981. Unfortunately, her application was made at a point when the council was changing over from a batch computer system to an on-line computer system for processing the applications.
The change-over caused some confusion among some training schools, which were required to submit information in a form somewhat different from that which they had been accustomed to supplying. That led to teething troubles and a logjam in the issue of certificates. However, I must point out that the notice was issued to Mrs. Moody on 17 November 1980 with the results of her assessment for enrolment, and it stated:
Your Certificate will normally be issued between 6–8 weeks after receipt, by the Council, of your Application Form.
So she was put on notice that there would be some delay.
At that time, with the introduction of the revised computer-based system which caused considerable difficulties, it was taking the council on average the best part of 10 weeks to issue enrolment notifications. That lengthy period was exacerbated by the particularly large number of applications being made at that particular time.
Although, on the face of it, it would seem a simple task for the council to check that the written exam and practical assessments had been passed, that the training period had been sucessfully completed, and that the correct enrolment fee had been paid, in practice that was not so. Delays in the submission of completed training records, in particular can, and do, often contribute to the time taken for processing enrolment applications.
In the particular case of Mrs. Moody, her training centre at Sheffield had correctly completed and submitted her training records to the council at the end of her training course in December. That is the one stage in the processing of her application where, unfortunately, the recorded facts have let us down. Neither the health authority nor the General Nursing Council can adequately show either when those records were despatched or when they were received. It was, however, as a result of an inquiry to the council at the beginning of February 1981 that a duplicate of the training record was submitted by the training centre, and that record is shown to have been received by the council on 9 February 1981. That information was fed into the council's computer on 20 February 1981, and it was only then that all the necessary satisfying conditions for Mrs. Moody's application for enrolment were met.
My hon. Friend's inquiries of the General Nursing Council have resulted in my being advised that Mrs. Moody was apprised of her enrolment and SEN number by telephone on the occasion of her telephoning the council at that time. I am told that she was informed by the council that possession of her number would provide her with satisfactory evidence for her to approach the new employing authority—Rotherham area health authority—with a view to taking up her appointment as an SEN with it at Montagu hospital, Mexborough. Again, my information is that Mrs. Moody was not prepared to accept

this telephone notification and preferred to await her written notification of enrolment. It is, I understand, common practice among employing health authorities to accept such telephone details of enrolment on registration because of the very point about which the hon. Gentleman protests—that is, the time needed by the council to issue notification.
I know of nothing to suggest that Rotherham would not have acted on such information if it had been given to it. As it was, Mrs. Moody's written notification was despatched to her by recorded delivery on 17 March 1981, and I understand that she took up employment at Montagu hospital 13 days later. The hon. Gentleman will notice that I have been at some pains to emphasise the fact that there is and always has been an inherent time lag in processing nurse applications to enrolment of registration. I use the expression "time lag" deliberately as it is only the period of time over and above the norm that can be fairly regarded as delaying an individual's appointment in relation to other pupil nurses at the time.
In the case of Mrs. Moody's application, she was informed that this time lag for enrolment would normally be in the region of six to eight weeks. As it was, over 13 weeks elapsed in her case. The actual delay therefore amounts to a period of between five and seven weeks.
On the possibility of the employment of Mrs. Moody in the Health Service during the period from 12 December to 29 March, my hon. Friend has been informed by the Sheffield health authority that Mrs. Moody was advised by her training centre that she could have remained employed by it after the end of her training period. The normal practice would then have been for her pay as an SEN to be predated in clue course to her effective date of enrolment. Mrs. Moody, however, having made arrangements to commence work at Montagu hospital when her enrolment came through, preferred, I understand, not to take advantage of this option.
I should like to take this opportunity to inform the House that, largely due to the introduction of new technology and the concerted efforts of the council's own staffs to streamline procedures, the time lag between the receipt of applications and the issue of certificates is now on average between three and four weeks.
The hon. Gentleman has called into question the possibility of compensation for Mrs Moody for the period during which it is claimed she was deprived of employment. This is not really a matter on which my hon. Friend or the Secretary of State can directly intervene. These are matters that fall to be decided between the General Nursing Council and the health authority. I hope that they will pay clue heed to all that has been stated on Mrs. Moody's behalf during the debate. If they do not, I can only repeat the advice already given to the hon. Gentleman by the former Minister of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan). There is always recourse to legal action if Mrs. Moody feels that her rights have been infringed and that she can recover by way of damages the losses that she feels others have caused her to suffer. Beyond that, I am afraid that I am not in a position to help the hon. Gentleman. These are matters that are outside the ability of Ministers to deal with.

Mr. Hardy: It seems to me that some of the information that the Minister has obtained and given to the House in good faith—I do not make any charge against


him—has come from the General Nursing Council and it continues to arouse my considerable doubts. The story about Mrs. Moody being told on the telephone is, in my view, completely inaccurate. I shall ask Mrs. Moody to

write to me again. I have discussed this matter fully with her. I believe her word implicitly. I have had ample grounds to doubt that of the General Nursing Council.

The Question having been proposed after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes past Five o'clock.